2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and reflects the depth of each of the instant crimes. Each of the instant crimes is more favorable to the Defendant, such as the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., for which the judgment has become final and conclusive, and the principle of equity with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously in relation to a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, despite the fact that the defendant had been punished several times for the same crime, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the repeated crime period, and the defendant provided the other person with the medication of phiphones beyond the medication of philophones, and provided it to the other person, and thus, the crime related to narcotics is highly likely to cause severe harm to the society and the risk of repeating the crime, so it is disadvantageous.

Considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as the aforementioned circumstances, various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or to maintain them as they are.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

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.