2. Although there are extenuating circumstances such as the fact that there was no history of punishment since the defendant was punished in 2003, the defendant provided information to the person who violated the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the person who provided an investigation cooperation by informing the person who committed a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, narcotics, etc., and did not repeat the crime, the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case even though there was the frequency of the crime in this case, the amount of penphones provided for the crime in this case, the records that the defendant had been punished several times due to the violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, the violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, the violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, the violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, and all other sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, after the crime,

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