2. Determination

A. As to the reasons for appeal, the Defendant handled without a large number of times of handling phiphones, and the Defendant did not only handle phiphones, but also sold 10 grams units. In light of the distribution structure of philophones and the distribution route of philophones and the power of waves, etc., the intermediate wholesale of philophones need to be punished more strictly than the retail of philophones or philophones. The Defendant had the record of punishment for the same crime from around 1998 to 13 times, and was sentenced to more than 11 times of sentence, the Defendant appears to have continued to sell philophones within a short period of time after release, and the instant case was also low during the period of repeated crimes due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant’s cooperation in the investigation and investigation of the facts that it was difficult for the Defendant to submit the above information within the reasonable scope of each of the above investigation report and the following changes in the sentencing.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(b) Of the application of the statute of the lower court’s partial ex officio correction, Article 60 Subparag. 3 in the second sentence following the determination of the pertinent law and the penalty for the crime in the application of the statute of the lower judgment is deemed to be an obvious clerical error in Article 60 Subparag. 3, and thus, ex officio correction is made “Article 60 Subparag. 3.”.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.