2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, against his mistake, and cooperated with the investigation by stating the merchant boat at the time of the prosecution investigation, etc., and that the Defendant’s family members and branch members want to leave the Defendant’s seat.

However, in light of the fact that the crime of this case is found to have been administered and smoked by the Defendant once each time, and about 1.04g of marijuana for the purpose of smoking, and that it is not good to the nature of the crime, and that there is a need to strictly punish and eradicate the crimes of narcotics in light of the addiction to narcotics and the harmful effects caused by the administration of narcotics, etc., and that the Defendant already committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he had been sentenced to several criminal punishment for narcotics crimes, as well as the fact that the Defendant had committed the crime of this case in this case without being aware of the fact that he was released from the same crime after being sentenced to punishment for the same crime, and that the result of the maternity appraisal appears to have been “training” reaction from both phiphones and marijuana, and that the Defendant’s age, sex, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission, etc. do not seem to be too unfair.

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.