2. As cited in the judgment of the court below, there are extenuating circumstances in determining the punishment, such as: (a) the Defendant recognized all of his own crimes and expressed that he would not again commit a crime; (b) the Defendant did not have any criminal record which was punished for the same crime as this case; and (c) the Defendant should support her mother who is suffering from cancer.

However, even though narcotics-related crimes are not only directly infringing on national health but also have an adverse impact on society as a whole such as causing various crimes, it is highly necessary to eradicate them through strict enforcement of responsibility.

In addition, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a high possibility of criticism against the Defendant for the instant crime in that he/she possessed temporary psychotropic drugs from E twice during the period of repeated crime and used them in a way that inhales tobacco with a smoke added thereto.

In full view of these circumstances, the maximum amount of the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee and the maximum range of the recommended sentencing guidelines is from 1 to 5 years.

Even in consideration of the circumstances of the defendant's breath sentence, it is difficult to determine punishment by leaving the lower limit of the sentencing criteria for the defendant who committed the crime during the period of repeated crime.

The sentencing of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant’s punishment, cannot be deemed to be excessively unreasonable compared to the extent of the Defendant’s responsibility.

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