The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (a year and six months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of three years, protection observation, 80 hours community service, 40 hours pharmacologic treatment, additional collection of KRW 67,00) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, on December 12, 2013, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten (10) years for the criminal facts that smoked marijuana on December 12, 2013. The Defendant committed the instant crime that purchased, smoked or administered marijuana and philophonephones in spite of the fact that he/she was under the protection observation, and the responsibility for the relevant crime is very heavy. The narcotics crime not only causes the mental and physical injury of an individual due to its peculiar toxicity, but also causes another crime in the process of manufacturing, distributing and using them, thereby causing serious harm to the society as a whole; the Defendant, at the protective observation office, has a phiphone-phone response at the protective observation office, left on November 16, 2015, and arrested on February 12, 2016, after the suspended execution period has elapsed.

However, it appears that the Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected, and the Defendant was able to search for marijuana by easily approaching marijuana at the place of the juvenile flag, the Guam, and the space page. The instant case appears to be the first one, the intention of treating narcotics addiction, and the fact that the marijuana and the penphones handled are relatively small in size, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Therefore, in full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasy and unreasonable.

Therefore, it is true.