2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected in the judgment.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, even though the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, issued and administered a phiphone, and smoke and possession of marijuana. The Defendant, even though he had been punished once suspended execution due to drug crimes, twice imprisonment with prison labor, but did not know about the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, and distributed it to others by delivering a phiphone in possession of the Defendant, and the Defendant issued a phiphone to the Defendant.

In light of the circumstances leading up to the visit of D, although the Defendant appears to have visited D for the purpose of hiding the instant crime from the beginning, it is difficult for the lower court to take full account of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the record and the change theory, which are the conditions for sentencing following the instant crime, do not seem to be unfair because the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, considering the following as a whole: “I do not talk about how I am. I am?” and “I do not talk about how I am. E.,” and the Defendant attempted to conceal the Defendant’s instant crime of scambroding the entire individuals, families, society, and human society.

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.

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.