The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One divers (No. 1), pinc. for a single divers seized.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the substance of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court.

However, when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the first deliberation sentencing process and the sentencing guidelines, the first deliberation sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

In a case where there are circumstances, such as where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment of the first instance court which was unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Narcotics-related crimes need not be easily discovered in light of their characteristics, but need to strictly cope with the negative impact on the society as well as the high risk of recidivism, due to their decliability, toxicity, etc., of the same kind of narcotics.