2. The fact that there are no criminal records of the same kind in the judgment, and that all of the crimes have been led in the trial is favorable to the defendant.

However, the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of selling phiphones beyond the administration of phiphones, the Defendant did not cooperate in the investigation into “I” under the name of issuing phiphones, and the sentence imposed by the lower court is the scope of the recommended sentence set out in the sentencing guidelines (one year to three years and eight months).

1. Crimes 1 and 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year nor more than two years;

2. Type 3 (Determination of Type): Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 0 months nor more than 2 years.

3. The result of the increase in the final scope of sentences by multiple offenses (Article 1/2(1/3 of the upper limit of crimes No. 2 of the upper limit of crimes No. 1): Imprisonment with prison labor within one year to three years and eight months, and there is no change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, and the number of crimes committed cannot be deemed unfair on the ground that the lower court’s punishment is too large, in full view of the following:

3. 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.