2. We can take account of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was waiting for committing the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant did not repeat the instant crime for a long time after being punished for the same type of crime.

However, according to the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant administered, received, and transferred philophones, and that there is a considerable number of times of transfer, and the risk of recidivism is not easy due to its characteristics, and that there is a need to reduce the negative impact on society as a whole, and that the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, it is inevitable to impose a strict punishment on the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, there is no special change of circumstances that make the original judgment and the punishment different from the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.