All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment and collection) of the lower court’s punishment (e.g., 10 months of collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court of the relevant legal doctrine, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

Defendant

The fact that the defendant's decision on the argument of unfair sentencing in A recognizes his mistake and reflects his own fault, and that the health is not good is favorable to the defendant A.

On the other hand, in light of the background and method of the crime, there is a very bad character of the crime, the record of punishment including imprisonment for the same and different crimes, and in particular, there is a lack of compliance consciousness, such as repeated committing each of the crimes in this case during the repeated crime period due to the same crime, and the risk of repeating the crime is judged to have high, and the crime of narcotics causes serious danger to national health and social safety due to the cryptness and toxicity, etc., and thus, it is disadvantageous to the defendant A.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances of Defendant A’s sentencing as above, and there is no circumstance to newly consider in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be so excessive that the sentencing of the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

C. Defendant B’s mistake on Defendant B’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.