2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case and reflects the mistake, that the amount of the drug handling of this case is relatively low, that there is a favorable condition that the defendant's health is not good, but that there is 4 times before and after the same sentence is imposed, that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period, that there is no sufficient quality of the crime because of the administration of phiphones, as well as the sale thereof. In the judgment below, the Supreme Court's recommendation type [basic crime: the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. due to the sale of phiphonephones: the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by the sale of phiphones, the recommendation type of basic crime (the aggravated factor - the aggravated factor: the aggravated factor): imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 years, the recommendation type of concurrent crimes (the aggravated factor: the previous one): imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 3 years to 3 years, the defendant's final motive and the circumstances that the defendant sentenced to the punishment of this case within 6 years and the maximum period of imprisonment.

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

However, Articles 60(1)2, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and Articles 60(1)2, and 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., respectively, shall be deemed ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, respectively.