2. In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relations, the frequency and amount of handling phiphones, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is unreasonable.

The favorable circumstances: (a) the fact that he/she voluntarily surrendered to an investigation agency to commit the crime of [2016 Highest 1146]; (b) the fact that he/she did not go to the crime of arranging the sale of phiphones when he/she administers phiphones; (c) the fact that he/she recognized the crime; and (d) the fact that he/she was cooperating with an investigation, such as revealing the merchant lines; (b) the crime related to narcotics requires strict countermeasures; (c) the defendant has been punished twice by imprisonment with prison labor by committing the same kind of crime; and (d) the defendant committed the crime related to narcotics, such as committing the crime of this case again during trial; and (e) the defendant again committed the crime related to the medication of phiphones while he/she is under trial.

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