2. Determination is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his/her mistake, and that the health conditions are not good due to the climatic and oral diseases, etc.

However, in light of the addiction of narcotics and the harm caused by medication of narcotics, etc., it is necessary to strictly punish narcotics and eradicate them. The Defendant committed the crime of this case even though he was sentenced to imprisonment by the first instance court during the period during which the instant crime was suspended, he was sentenced to a fine by the appellate court in 2010 and was released by the first instance court during the period during which the Defendant committed the crime of this case, and the results of maternity appraisal were ‘training’ reaction, it seems that the Defendant seems that the degree of addiction to phiphones seems not to be somewhat weak. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s execution of a search and seizure warrant was refused at the investigation stage, and the circumstances after the execution of the search and seizure warrant were not good, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of sentencing guidelines to be recommended by the Sentencing committee, etc., the lower court did not seem to have made excessive punishment, considering the following circumstances.

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.