All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Defendant

and the summary of the grounds for each appeal by the prosecutor: Illegal sentencing

A. In light of all the sentencing conditions, including the following: (a) the Defendant merely ordered the instant ls in the first instance judgment; (b) the said ls did not actually reach the actual distribution; (c) the victims of violence do not want to be punished against the Defendant; (d) there was no criminal history exceeding the fine; and (e) there was no record of the same kind of crime related to the narcotics crime; and (c) the Defendant’s mother has led the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant expressed support and interest to the Defendant, it is unreasonable for the lower court to sentence the Defendant for 2 years and 6 months.

B. In light of all the sentencing conditions, such as the fact that it is deemed necessary to enforce a strict law because the influence of narcotics imported by the Defendant by the prosecutor on the society is considerable in light of their halluity and addiction, and the import volume thereof, serious damage to the majority of the violent crimes of this case was inflicted, and the fact that the crime of narcotics and the crime of fraud were committed repeatedly without reliance even though they continued to be tried due to the above violent crimes, etc., two years and six months of imprisonment sentenced by the court below are excessively uneasible.

Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in full view of the factors and sentencing criteria in the process of sentencing of the first instance trial.

It is unfair to maintain the first-class sentencing judgment by integrating the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing.