The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to serious symptoms of mental illness, which are likely to cause recurrence.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an additional collection of KRW 200,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of committing the instant crime, the statement made by the Defendant to the investigation agency, etc., acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to a disability, which may cause severe recurrence of symptoms of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weakness are without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, there are extenuating circumstances for the defendant, such as recognizing the crime of this case and admitting his mistake.

However, the crime of this case is likely to be criticized in that the defendant purchased and administered philophones, and the nature of the crime is not weak, but the defendant administered philophones with the knowledge that he was subject to tracking by an investigative agency, and the defendant has already been punished nine times due to drug crimes, and the defendant has already been punished nine times due to the last sentence after the execution of the crime of this case was completed.

In light of the various circumstances, including the above circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, it does not seem that the Defendant’s improper assertion of sentencing is groundless.

3. According to the conclusion of the judgment, the defendant's appeal is groundless, and thus, Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not applicable.