2. Determination is that the Defendant would not repeat the same mistake while against the instant crime; that there is no record of punishment for the crime related to phiphones; that is, the Defendant does not seem to have committed a crime of arranging the sale of phiphones; that the Defendant has cooperated with the investigation by disclosing the lines; that the Defendant has a strong social relationship with the Defendant; and that is, it is favorable to the Defendant.

However, narcotics-related crimes are crimes that cause degradation to individuals, homes, and society as a whole. In particular, the crime of selling phiphonephones is highly harmful to society, such as addiction's mass production, and thus it is necessary to cope with more strict measures. In full view of the fact that the amount of phiphones handled by the defendant is considerably large, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.