2. The crime of this case is recognized as being sold philophones over three occasions even though the defendant is not a narcotics handler, and the defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, and the defendant seems to have no profit from the sale of philophones.

However, even though the Defendant had been sentenced seven times for the same crime, he did not know about the period of repeated crime for the same crime, and went to commit the crime of this case more than four months after release. The nature of the crime is not less than that of the Defendant. The investigation of the Defendant was started by informing the Defendant of the purchase of phiphonephones from the Defendant. Narcotics crimes result in decilization of individuals, homes, society and human society as a whole, and need to be punished with severe punishment in light of the fact that they are social ties beyond individual criminal acts, and other various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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.

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.