2. It should be taken into account that the printing is the first offender, the investigation of this case was initiated by the number of the accused, and that the accused repents his mistake.

However, in light of the following factors: (a) the number of times the Defendant administered philophones for a relatively long period; (b) the number of the Defendant appears to have already been reflected in the sentence in the lower court; and (c) other factors of sentencing indicated in the records of this case, such as the circumstances leading up to the commission of the crime and its methods; and (d) the age, character and conduct, family environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

(On the other hand, with respect to the amount to be collected, the defendant alleged that he purchased 20,000 won when he purchased philophones in Thailand, but there is no evidence supporting the defendant's assertion. Thus, the court below's calculation of the amount to be collected against the defendant based on domestic trade cannot be deemed unlawful. 3. The defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.