2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime.

There are children who have to support the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant put a nitros containing luluent ingredients into a vinyl blin, and inhales them. In light of the fact that the inhaled of hallucinogenic substances causes harm to social soundness in itself due to their addiction and side effects, and there is a risk of causing secondary damage by leaving them into another crime in a rectangular state, the nature of the crime is not easy.

On December 9, 2016, the Defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Chemicals Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "hestinant"), not only before being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years, but also after having been sentenced to imprisonment with labor for the same crime.

Since the defendant did not know even though he was under the suspension of execution due to the same kind of crime, it is inevitable to severely punish the crime of this case.

In full view of all the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the bounds of its discretion.

As there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too large.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept the defendant's unfair argument.

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.