2. The judgment of the defendant shows the attitude that the defendant divided the crime of this case and reflected the crime of this case. However, the crime of this case is not simply administered phiphones, but purchased phiphones, administered phiphones, and mediated the trade of phiphones, and it is not good to form the crime. The defendant recently sentenced 8 months to imprisonment for violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., on June 15, 201, and again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime. The defendant committed the crime of this case from around 1997 to the recent year. The majority of the crimes were punished by imprisonment, and it is not punishable, and it is not possible to expect that the trade of phiphones was done, and the contact details in the sales of phiphones are added to the contact details in the sales of phiphones, and thus, it is not good to form the crime of this case. The sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court and the sentencing guidelines of the Commission are set forth in the sentencing guidelines of 2 years to the sentencing guidelines.

The main sentence, etc. (type 4): The aggravated factor (type 4): the same previous conviction (type 4): not less than a three-year suspended sentence) [decision on the recommended area] the aggravated area [the scope of the recommended area] [the scope of the punishment in consideration of two to four years, the sentence of the court below shall be deemed to be adequate and too unreasonable.

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

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.