2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized the mistake of the Defendant, and the quantity of narcotics in possession is relatively low, but the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspension period of execution for the same crime, and the possession of the instant phiphone does not seem to be irrelevant to the purpose of medication at all. [The Defendant stated at the investigative agency that “it was administered twice at the time of springing 2016” (Evidence No. 135 of the evidence record), and that there was a response to the training of Mepta in the part within 1 cm from the maternity in the maternity as a result of the maternal appraisal (the record No. 38 of the record of the trial). The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the lower sentence corresponding to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee in consideration of all the sentencing factors stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act with respect to the sentencing of the Defendant. Such sentence of the lower court is too too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. 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 groundless.