2. The judgment of the court below is appropriate and reasonable in light of the following circumstances: (a) the fact that the penphones received by the defendant are all seized and not distributed; (b) the fact that there is no record of domestically punished, etc. are favorable to the defendant; (c) narcotics crimes are detrimental to the health of the people; (d) narcotics crimes are likely to cause another crime due to their toxic properties, etc.; and (e) are highly likely to cause harm to individuals and society as a whole; and (e) narcotics which are recently rapidly and in a metropolitanized organization, there is a need to strictly cope with the narcotics crimes in order to protect our society and members; (c) when considering the details of the Defendant’s P dialogue and the details of interview with their birth, etc., the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by a foreign drug delivery; and (d) the quantity of the phonephones that the Defendant intended to receive and deliver are 1 km away from the Defendant’s age, age, sex, environment, family relations, motive, circumstances, means, results, etc., the records and arguments after the instant crime.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.