2. Determination of the crime of this case is recognized that the Defendant purchased phiphonephones once even though he is not a narcotics handler, administered twice, and the Defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, and since the crime of this case that was around February 2008, there was no fact connected to the narcotics crime until now.

However, the Defendant had the record of having been sentenced to three times as punishment for the same crime. Furthermore, the Defendant did not know even though he had been punished for a repeated crime for the same crime, and went to the instant crime for three months only after being released from the prison, and the Defendant was present at the investigative agency on February 2, 2008 before being arrested by an arrest warrant around September 2016. Narcotics crimes cause decristion to individuals, families, society, and human society, and thus need to be punished strictly in that they are social pathology beyond the individual criminal act. In full view of various circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., 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.