2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it, and that there is no record of punishment for the previous narcotics crime of this case.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been administered twice by purchasing philophones even though the defendant is not a narcotics handler. In light of the defendant's maternity appraisal result, etc., the degree of addiction seems not to be somewhat weak, and narcotics crime causes the degradation of individuals, homes, society, and human society as a whole, and requires strict punishment in that it is an individual's social pathology beyond criminal acts.

In light of Defendant’s health condition, etc., the lower court alleged that it was unfair for the Defendant to order a social service for 80 hours. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the community service order itself of this case is unfair on this ground is unreasonable, since the competent protective observation office may sufficiently consider the Defendant’s health condition and conditions at the execution stage.

In addition, even if considering the Defendant’s health condition, etc., it does not seem that allowing the Defendant to perform the community service in this case, even if considering the Defendant’s health condition, it does not seem to be excessive.

In full view of such various circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, including the circumstances after the instant crime, and various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and theories of changes, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.