2. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is deemed appropriate in light of all of the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relations, the frequency and amount of handling philophones, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The favorable circumstances: The fact that the administration of philophones does not go to the crime such as the arrangement of the sale of philophones, the fact that the crime is recognized and reflected, the fact that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime: Narcotics-related crime requires strict measures as a crime that causes decilization of individuals, families, society as a whole; the defendant was arrested once as a crime such as philophone medication and possession; the defendant committed an additional same kind of crime; the defendant attempted to administer philophones together with others; the defendant tried to administer philophones beyond being administered for himself; and the response to the training of philophones has been confirmed from the Malogram appraisal conducted in March 2016.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.