A. It is not an offense since he acted in accordance with an instruction or order to administer narcotics, by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. On the part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant was investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office, and “On August 9, 2013, local relatives of the Philippines showed always to administer phiphones. At the time of departure from the Republic of Korea on or around August 9, 2013, the Defendant administered phiphones because he wanted to do so at least once, and his her friends. It is good to see that the Defendant’s act of administering phiphones is not likely to have any possibility of a lawful act, or that he does not have any possibility of a lawful act.” Therefore, in light of the fact that the Defendant stated that the Defendant purchased phiphones without being forgotten with the Republic of Korea, and stated that phiphones were administered again without being forgotten with the Defendant, and in view of the Defendant’s age, educational background, career, occupation, etc. recognized by the record, the circumstance asserted by the Defendant alone is that the Defendant’s act of administering phiphones does not have any possibility for the Defendant’s act.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the assertion on unreasonable sentencing, the circumstances that the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the crime related to phiphones are considered.

However, the number or volume of the Defendant’s administration of philophones is not a large number of times or quantities, the sentence of one-year suspension of the execution of one-year imprisonment for crimes related to marijuana in 2010 also led to the instant crime. The lower court, taking into account the already favorable circumstances for the Defendant, sentenced the lower court to the sentencing guidelines, and there is no special change in the circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.