A. The Defendant, as indicated in the lower judgment, did not provide C with a Mesophical phone (hereinafter “Mesophopon”) at around 22:00 around December 25, 2016, as indicated in the facts constituting the crime No. 1 of the lower judgment, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an additional collection of 1 year, 200,000 won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's assertion by the defendant is without merit, since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant delivered phiphones to C at around 22:00 on December 25, 2016, as stated in the judgment below, as shown in paragraph (1) of the crime committed by the court below.

B. In full view of various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the instant case, including the following: (a) the criminal defendant committed a repeated crime during the period of a repeated crime due to the same crime; and (b) the fact that there are several records of having been punished for the same crime other than a repeated crime, etc., which are disadvantageous to the criminal defendant; and (c) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment; and (d) there is no change in the sentencing conditions, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, and thus, the above argument by the criminal defendant 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.