The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, 40 hours of lectures for pharmacologic treatment, and 33,00 won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant recognized all of the crimes in this case, committed a mistake, and took a cooperative attitude in the investigation.

The number of marijuana purchased by the defendant is not large, and the defendant did not distribute it around it.

The defendant is relatively old and has no criminal history. Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, narcotics crimes have a significant negative impact on society and society as well as on the body and mind of an individual due to their declimatic toxicity, and on the health of people due to declimatic toxicity.

The defendant's direct contact with the seller through the telegram that smokes and possesses marijuana after purchasing it.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the health team and the Defendant as elements of sentencing are already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, and there is no particular change in the situation after the sentence of the lower court was made.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the defendant's career, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, various conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments and arguments such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court, and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentence of the court below is too unfair because it is done within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.