2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, appears to repent of his mistake, the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and there are children to be supported by the defendant.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s act of selling and administering the instant drugs three times or more; (b) the number of the crimes; (c) the number of times of the crimes; and (d) the quantity of the Melapers purchased (10.4g); and (c) it is difficult to deem the Defendant as self-denunciation due to the highly reflective nature of the administration of the Melapers again even after the Defendant voluntarily surrendered to the investigative agency; (d) according to the sentencing guidelines, the Defendant’s act of selling and administering the instant drugs falls under the basic area in the case of the Defendant; (b) the lower court rendered a relatively low sentence within the scope of the recommended sentence in light of the following factors: (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (d) the motive and conduct of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.