2. The lower court, based on the favorable circumstances, sentenced the Defendant to a sentence, taking into account the fact that the Defendant, a non-professional, has no record of committing a crime heavier than a suspended sentence, in light of the fact that the Defendant, who was a non-professional, brought in and sold the ice Nos., a prescription, from a foreign country, appears to be reasonable, and that the gain accrued therefrom would be deemed to be reasonable, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime with the knowledge of the harmfulness of the ice Nos. 198, and that the risk of public

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

The Defendant mainly argued to the effect that the sentence of a fine imposed by both the lower court and the lower court was harsh, and the Defendant, on September 2015, 2015, entered into brain falsing and suffered from the current brain 6th degree disability, making it difficult to conduct economic activities, and both the Defendant and his father, who are the recipients of basic living, are also entitled to raise the hospital fee of the Defendant.

However, considering the fact that the sentencing in the court below seems to play a leading role in the instant crime, it seems that the defendant's profits derived from the instant crime would not be much high, as the sentencing in the court below revealed, given that the size of the Defendant's illegal stedying system sales, the period of sales, the ratio of profits from the sales to the sales, and the Defendant appears to play a leading role in the instant crime.

Even in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that it is unfair to impose a fine on the defendant excessively due to the fact that it is unfair.

Unlike others, the sentencing conditions have been significantly changed in the court.

There is no reason to see the above sentencing, and when comprehensively considering the above sentencing, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.