All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, Defendant B imprisonment with prison labor of one year, and Defendant E.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in the case of Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months (the first instance court); Defendant B: imprisonment for a year and two months (the first instance court); imprisonment for a year and one year and two months (the first instance court); imprisonment for a year and ten months (the second instance court); imprisonment for a period of six months (the third instance court); and Defendant AZ: imprisonment for a period of one year and two months (the second instance court) are too unreasonable;

2. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant E prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant E.

Defendant

E filed an appeal against the judgment below, and this Court decided to consolidate each appeal case with each other.

Defendant

Since each crime of the judgment of the court below against E is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, among the judgment of the court of first and second instances, the part on the defendant E and the judgment of the court of third instances cannot be maintained

3. The crimes related to narcotics, etc. related to the determination of the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, B, and Z are likely to undermine the health of the people and have a significant negative impact on the society as a whole due to their halluity and toxicity.

Defendant

A has many records of punishment for the same crime of narcotics, and has committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime.

Defendant

In the case of B, there are many frequency of scopon medication, and the defendant AZ is sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. and then came to fall under the same kind of crime in the appellate trial, and therefore the above defendants' criminal liability is not easy.

However, the above Defendants recognized all the crimes of this case, and the contents of the crimes were mainly administered.

Defendant

B has no record of being punished for the same crime, and there is a child who has to support.

In addition, in full view of the aforementioned Defendants’ age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing against the said Defendants is unreasonable.