2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the defendant administered and possessed philophones even though he is not a narcotics handler, smoked marijuana, and the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it, and the health of the defendant is not good.

However, the Defendant had been sentenced one time to suspended execution and eight times to a total of nine times to a suspended sentence due to drug crime, and went again to the instant crime only one month after release, even though he was a repeated crime due to drug crime, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the amount of the penphone in possession of the Defendant is not less than 4.55g, and it seems that the degree of addiction is not less than 4.55g, and the result of the Defendant’s maternity appraisal, etc., and it seems that it is necessary to isolate from society for a certain period of time, and that the narcotics crime is likely to cause depression of individuals, homes, society, and human beings, and thus, it is necessary to punish the crime in light of the fact that it is beyond the individual criminal act, and that there is a need to punish the offender in light of other circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, sex, motive, means, consequences, results, etc. of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

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.

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.