2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

The Defendant has cooperated with the investigative agency in investigating narcotics crimes.

On the other hand, narcotics-related crimes need to be strictly punished not only for themselves but also for them in society due to high toxicity.

The defendant smokes marijuana, and administered philophones, it is reasonable to the frequency and period of the administration of marijuana, and spreads narcotics crimes to deliver it without being limited to the simple receipt and smoking of marijuana.

On July 5, 2010, the Defendant had a lot of records of criminal punishment for the same drug crime including the previous convictions sentenced to the eight months of imprisonment due to the violation of the Narcotics Control Act.

The defendant seems to have been addicted to marijuana in light of the number of times of receiving marijuana and smoking.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, occupation and environment, motive and background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below’s sentence cannot be deemed to be unfair because the Defendant’s cooperation in the investigation of the narcotics crime was too large, considering the circumstances in which the materials were submitted by the investigation agency.

The defendant's unfair argument in sentencing shall not be accepted.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.