2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the Defendant received and administered philophones even though the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, stolen one of the golf sofaculs owned by the victim D, the Defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, and contributed significantly to the arrest of the narcotics offender by actively cooperating with the narcotics investigation, and that the thief was restored to the victim and restored to the victim.

However, the Defendant had been punished several times, including a thief and a drug crime, and even though he had not been aware of the fact that he had been punished for a repeated crime due to a drug crime, he went to the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the nature of the crime is not good, and that the degree of addiction is not weak in light of the result of the Defendant’s maternity appraisal against the Defendant, etc., and it seems necessary to be subject to isolation from society. Narcotics crimes cause debris to individuals, families, society and human beings, and thus need to be punished strictly in that they are social pathology beyond individual criminal acts, and in light of other various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court 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 grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.