(2) On December 2, 201, the Defendant and his defense counsel withdrawn the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles during the first day of appeal, and thus, they do not make any separate judgment on the grounds of appeal). 2. Determination of the first day of this court, there are extenuating circumstances such as: (a) the Defendant reflects his wrong by living in custody; and (b) the Defendant informed the investigation agency of the upper line that he delivered the Mesatop citizens to provide investigation cooperation; (c) such circumstances appears to have already been taken into account when the lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant; (d) the Defendant was punished several times due to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (e.g., four times of sentence, three times of suspended sentence), and (e) the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again during the period of repeated crime after having been sentenced one year and six months as of December 2, 2011; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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.

(However, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act shall be corrected as "Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc." in Part 16 of the Decision of the court below ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1)