2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the Defendant purchased and administered phiphonephones even though he is not a narcotics handler, smokes marijuana. The Defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, and the Defendant did not have any record of being punished for the same kind of crime in 1989, as well as the punishment for the violation of the marith Control Act.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the number of times the Defendant purchased phiphones is not more than five times; (b) the number of times the Defendant had been subject to punishment several times for this type of crime, despite the fact that the instant narcotics crime was committed in the form of the instant narcotics crime; (c) the narcotics crime resulted in the mination of individuals, homes, society and human beings as a whole; and (d) there is a need to punish the offender in light of the fact that it is a social path beyond an individual criminal act; and (e) other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and

3. In conclusion, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.