2. The lower court, in collusion with accomplices, sentenced the above punishment in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant advertised the sales of phiphones via the Internet; (b) actually sold phiphones by scaming through the said advertisement; (c) the method of crime is very bad by widely spreading planned, organized, professional, and harmful harm; and (d) the Defendant was committing the instant crime even though he was committed for repeated offense due to the same criminal record.

In comparison with the judgment below, there is no particular change in the above sentencing conditions, and rather than three months after the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime, advertising the sales of phiphones and selling 3.2 g phiphones over four times a month thereafter, etc. comprehensively taking account of the various sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

On the other hand, the Defendant administered philophones, was in the state of mental and physical disability, under the serious low blood pressure, and the Defendant was investigated in this case. ② The Prosecutor, in violation of the Constitution, carried out intellectual property on a naval site and carried out a designated phone, detained the Defendant at the time of entry into the customs office by not using the phone at least one hour without a search and seizure warrant, and notified the Defendant at the time of arrest, and ③ the Defendant was merely a simple participation in the website operated by B, but did not actively sell the phone, and accordingly, reflected the above points in the sentencing. However, according to the record, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in the state of mental and physical disability or low blood pressure at the time of the investigation.