2. The crime of this case is recognized as having been administered after giving and receiving philophones even though the defendant is not a narcotics handler. It is recognized that the defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, actively cooperated in the investigation into a narcotics offender, and that the amount of philophones handled by the defendant is not large.

However, the Defendant did not know even during the period of repeated crime for the same crime, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the Defendant appears to have weak awareness of compliance as a whole, since he had been punished about 18 times for various crimes, such as larceny and fraud, and narcotics crime brings about the debrisonization of individuals, homes, society and human society, and human society, and thus requires strict punishment in that it is a phenomenon beyond an individual criminal act, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, are considered to be the condition for sentencing. In full view of all the circumstances, 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.