2. The Defendant has led to the appellate trial to make a confession of his crime, and the instant crime needs to be considered in the equity in the case of concurrent crimes between the violation of the Narcotics Control Act as indicated in the judgment below and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant: (a) allowing C to recruit transportation books 14 times over 2 years; and (b) importing a huge quantity of c.2 kms exceeding 3.2 km in total by concealing phiphones in the inner clothes in which the transportation books he has recruited.

Most of the philophones imported by the defendant have already been consumed, and it is impossible to trace and recover many narcotics addicts or have re-exported to other countries.

The Defendant and accomplice B led each other to commit a crime.

With the responsibility of investigation agencies, where the defendant et al. received a huge amount of philophones, the location of so-called "factory" and the investigation of the related criminals was not conducted properly.

In addition, the Defendant again committed the instant crime without being imprisoned, even though he was sentenced to six years of imprisonment with prison labor for the commission of the act of importing phiphones similar to the instant case in 199.

In full view of such circumstances and other various sentencing conditions as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.