A. The Defendant had a mental disorder at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged mental or physical disorder indicated in the statement of grounds for appeal, but did not claim specific grounds for mental or physical disorder.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

Since it seems that there was no or weak state, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is a favorable circumstance that acknowledges and reflects each of the instant crimes, does not lead each of the instant crimes, and does not have the criminal power in the Republic of Korea.

However, the fact that the defendant imported 65 g of philophones twice, distributed philophones to the two selling activities, and distributed philophones in Korea. In addition, the fact that philophones are administered twice and possessed are disadvantageously.

The lower court sentenced the sentencing criteria, taking full account of such circumstances as the sentencing criteria set by the Sentencing Committee and other factors as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and sentenced to the lower limit of the sentencing criteria.

In full view of all of the reasons for the sentencing of the lower judgment in the trial, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the lower court’s sentencing as it is. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.