2. The judgment is a favorable condition that the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case while committing the crime of this case, and that the amount of phiphones handled by the defendant after the confession is not large. However, in light of the addiction of narcotics and the harm caused by medication, etc., the crime of narcotics need to be strictly punished and eradicated. The defendant has the criminal records of criminal punishment nine times due to the same crime, in particular, he committed the crime of this case without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and in light of the criminal records of the above defendant and the criminal records of the defendant who repeated self-denunciation after the medication, the court below seems to have great risk of recidivism in light of the criminal records of this case and the criminal records of the defendant who committed the crime of this case, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court [Article 3(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines for the crime of this case in consideration of the favorable circumstances to the defendant.

The sentence of punishment equivalent to the lower limit of 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment is imposed, the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, criminal records, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments are deemed unfair. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

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