2. The crime of this case is recognized that the defendant administered philophones twice even though he is not a narcotics handler, and possessed once, and that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it.

However, the Defendant had been sentenced once to a suspended sentence and twice as a sentence due to drug crimes, and had been sentenced to a repeated crime due to drug crimes only two months after release, even though it was a repeated crime period due to drug crimes, and the nature of the crime is not good, and considering the result of the Defendant’s maternity appraisal on the Defendant, etc., it seems that the degree of addiction is not easy for a certain period, and it is necessary to be isolated from society for a certain period of time. Narcotics crimes cause decilization of individuals, families, society, and humanity as a result of social scradism beyond individual criminal acts. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, motive and means of the instant crime, the consequence thereof, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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.