2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant confessions and reflects the crime of this case, that D, an accomplice, appears to have led to the crime of this case, that the defendant actively cooperateds with the investigation of the narcotics case by informing another narcotics offender, etc., and that there is no criminal record of the same kind.

However, it is not good for the defendant to commit the crime of this case in which he sells phiphones in a systematic and professional manner together with his accomplices, and in light of the quantity of phiphones handled, the frequency of the crime, etc.

On April 22, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor for not less than eight months for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and was released on November 30, 2015 during the execution of the sentence, and on December 22, 2015, the Defendant committed the instant crime only for several months after the expiration of the parole period.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, as well as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.