2. The crime of this case is recognized that the defendant administered philophones even though he is not a narcotics handler, smokes marijuana, damages property, etc., the defendant fully recognizes the crime of this case and reflects the fact that the defendant's health is not good.

However, the Defendant, without being aware of the fact that he was under repeated crime due to drug crimes, went beyond the scope of the offense in this case, and the quality of the crime is not good, and no damage was recovered from property damage up to the depth of the case. The Defendant had a record of suspended sentence once and six times of imprisonment with prison labor due to drug crimes, and the Defendant had a record of being punished more than six times of other violent crimes, such as other violent crimes, and the degree of addiction seems to be weak, and it seems that the degree of poisoning is not easy from the society for a certain period, and it seems necessary to be isolated from the society. Narcotics crimes result in degradation of individuals, homes, society and human society, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime in light of social phenomenon beyond the individual criminal act, and the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, as well as the records and changes after the crime in this case. In full view of various circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s unfair punishment 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.

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.