The punishment (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) imposed on the accused by the court below is too unreasonable.

However, it is recognized that the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant made a confession of the entire crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and that the Defendant’s health appears to be not good.

However, the Defendant has a past record of criminal punishment nine times as to the same crime and one suspended sentence, and the crime of this case is administered by the Defendant once and delivered approximately 0.02 g of clopon to another person (hereinafter “copon”), and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the decision of the lower court is rendered, and the sentencing with the same and similar cases is equitable, the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., as indicated in the arguments of this case, and the sentencing range according to the sentencing guidelines according to ① The sentencing range of the sentence imposed by the lower court pursuant to the former Guidelines for Narcotics Control Act (flopon number) due to the coponon number falls under the category of imprisonment with prison labor for the first time and the scope of sentence of the former Guidelines for Narcotics Crimes (b) the scope of sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the first time to 3 years, including the former Guidelines for Narcotics Crimes (hereinafter “former Guidelines for Narcotics Crimes”) and the scope of sentence 1 to 2 (b).

In full view of the lower limit, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too large.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Conclusion.