2. It is recognized that the circumstances such as the confession of the Defendant to commit the instant crime, and the depth of his mistake is divided, the fact that the Defendant voluntarily reported to the investigation agency after the instant crime, and the fact that the J, who administered the Mepta (hereinafter “Handphone”), voluntarily surrenders himself to the investigation agency, and that it appears that he actively cooperated with the relevant investigation by having K make a statement about K, the upper line of the J, and by having K be detained.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been administered by the defendant about 0.03g of phiphones. It is considerably poor in its nature in light of the method and content of the crime, the defendant was sentenced to three times to imprisonment with labor and one fine for a crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Changwon District Court on October 15, 2014. In particular, on May 14, 2015, the crime of this case was committed again during the period of repeated crimes even after the execution of the above punishment was completed, and there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be newly considered after the court below sentenced, and the punishment of this case is equal to the punishment of the same or similar case, the age, criminal behavior, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., and the punishment imposed by the court below on various sentencing conditions in the argument of this case, including the punishment of this case, and the scope of punishment for the crime of this case to be mitigated to three months or more, and the scope of punishment under the sentencing guidelines (the punishment of punishment of this case is an aggravated to three years or more.).

In full view of internal points, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the defendant is too large.

Therefore, the defendant's status.