2. The court below's determination that the defendant would not repeat the crime in depth and did not repeat the crime, and that his family members would clearly have a social ties, such as the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed systematically in favor of the defendant, and that the size and period of sales was significant, although the defendant had been punished twice for the same kind of crime, the defendant again committed the crime of this case even though he had been aware of the illegality of the selling act of this case after the first crackdown. In particular, in this case, even though the defendant was deemed to have sufficiently known of the illegality of the selling act of this case after the first crackdown, it appears that the defendant committed the crime of this case for a considerable period of time, and in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence, circumstances before and after the crime, the defendant's assertion is not justified.

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 appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (the application of the law of the court below). Since it is apparent that "1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes" was omitted between the 10th and 11th of the judgment in the column of application of the law of the court below, "Article 37 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act" was added. Since it is obvious that "A" in the 14th of the judgment document No. 8th is erroneous, it is deleted, and it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules of the Criminal Procedure).