2. The lower court, based on the following factors: (i) the sentencing factors favorable to the Defendant; (ii) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects; (iii) the Defendant was under a mental therapy due to depression, etc.; and (iv) the Defendant’s father, by aiding and abetting the Defendant’s return to the society; and (iv) the Defendant is deemed to have been sentenced to eight months of imprisonment in consideration of the following factors: (i) the unfavorable sentencing factors; (iii) the social harm of the narcotics crime; (iv) the Defendant was sentenced to the instant crime during the grace period; (v) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for the same kind of crime; and

In full view of the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relation, health status, volume and frequency of the narcotics handled, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the oral proceedings in the trial, etc., it cannot be said that the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, or that it is unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s sentencing, even in light of the circumstances where the Defendant shows his will to recover the relation with his father and thus to recover and terminate the mental health.

Therefore, the sentence of the court below is proper, and it is not recognized as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.