2. The judgment of the defendant is advantageous to the recognition of the crime of this case, and the fact that the family and branch members of the defendant want to leave the defendant's wife against the defendant is favorable.

However, even though the defendant had been punished several times due to the same crime, the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case is disadvantageous.

In addition, it is necessary to strictly punish narcotics-related crimes because they are highly malicious to their society and the risk of recidivism.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded or maintain the reasonable limits of discretion (the Defendant was unable to render a public service in cooperation with the investigation of narcotics).

However, according to the materials submitted at the trial of the party, F, who was informed by the defendant, appears to have never been arrested by the investigation agency, and is actually arrested by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.