2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant recognized the crime of this case as committing the crime of this case, against his mistake, the statement about the merchant ship that provided narcotics to the defendant, etc. cooperates in the relevant investigation, and that the family and the branch of the defendant want to find the defendant's wife.

However, in light of the addiction of narcotics and the harm caused by the administration of narcotics, etc. as the case where the Defendant has repeatedly administered phiphones more than twice, the crime of this case requires strict punishment and eradicates it. In addition, the Defendant already committed the crime of this case despite having been sentenced to multiple times as a drug crime, and even though he was released from the prison due to a drug crime, even though he was under the period of repeated crime, the Defendant committed the crime of this case. The investigation records on the upper line confirmed at the trial seems to have already been considered when determining the sentencing at the trial stage, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, means and method of the crime, the balance of sentencing with all kinds of sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments such as the circumstances after the crime, the recommended sentencing range of sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission, etc., it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence of this case 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.