2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the criminal act of this case, and that there is a mother to support the defendant.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she administered phiphones even though he/she is not a narcotics handler. In light of the addiction of narcotics and the harm caused by the medication of narcotics, etc., it is necessary to strictly punish and eradicate narcotics crimes. The Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she committed the instant crime during the suspended execution period of three years after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years due to the commission of a special injury on May 21, 2016 (the instant crime committed during the period of protection observation, which was committed during which the suspended sentence was revoked, Incheon District Court 200 early 200). The Defendant appears to have attempted to destroy evidence by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s motive and circumstance that had to serve two-year punishment due to the cancellation of the said suspended sentence; and (b) the lower court appears to have sufficiently changed the Defendant’s motive and form of the instant crime.

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.