All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The marijuana seized by a prosecutor (not guilty part of the judgment of the lower court) shall constitute reinforced evidence concerning the smoking part of the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part by misapprehending the legal doctrine on reinforced evidence.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant made a confession of all of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant’s person who was the person who was not in charge of the instant high-ranking crime is taking the Defendant’s preference against the Defendant; and (c) multiple drug offenders were arrested upon the Defendant’s cooperation

However, the crime of this case was committed not only by the defendant merely administering phiphones, but also by selling, purchasing, receiving, holding, arranging the transaction of, buying or selling a considerable amount of phiphones on several occasions, or by holding others with marijuana as the seller of phiphones. In light of the type and method of the crime, the crime of this case is very poor. The defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime even though he was sentenced to a fine of one time for 2008 and three times of punishment since the suspended sentence was sentenced for the same crime in 2008, and the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime although he had been sentenced to the suspended sentence for 208. In full view of various circumstances, including the amount of phiphonephones handled by the defendant, character and behavior of the defendant, environment, criminal records, family relations, circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant's assertion is too unreasonable. Thus, it is not reasonable to have the defendant'

B. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

On May 1, 2013, at around 19:00 on the first day of May, 2013, the Defendant was cut from M at a shooting distance at the entrance of the national flag located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul.