2. The judgment of the Defendant is a favorable condition for the Defendant to the effect that all of the instant crimes were led to confessions and reflects in depth, and that the Defendant must support his parent.

However, each of the crimes of this case is not limited to the mere medication of phiphones, but is very poor in the nature of the crime in light of the type of crime, method, etc., and the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence in 2006 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence in 2007, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case at the same time despite being suspended on two occasions in 2011, and other circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the amount of phiphone handled by the defendant, character and conduct of the defendant, environment, criminal records, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., which are conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are shown in the records and arguments of this case, are too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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

(However, in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the article 347 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the article 347 (1) of the decision of the court below are deleted.)