The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced to the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, six years of confiscation, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the judgment: A person who was in favor of himself/herself, cooperation with the investigation (the defendant, even before being arrested, provided cooperation with the investigation of the crime of importing phiphonephones, and also with additional investigation cooperation in the court below as well as in the case of the party) and the so-called so-called marriage will not repeat the crime.

C. The defendant's spouse, the defendant's spouse, and the person's appeal circumstances: the negative influence of the narcotics crime, the risk of circulation in the case of the importation of phiphones is very high; the majority of the records of the narcotics crime, such as the import and medication of phiphones, and the crime of repeatedly importing and selling phiphones from 2-3 months after the last criminal conviction was released from imprisonment with prison labor, the amount of imported phiphones is considerable, the distribution of a large quantity of phiphones, and the crime of the medication carrying phiphones while cooperating with the investigation, including the above circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, family relations, the motive and consequence of the crime, and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee, it is not recognized that the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

(A) The Defendant requested care and custody for the treatment of drug addiction on the grounds of appeal. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal against the lower judgment, and as long as there is no prosecutor’s request for care and custody, the court cannot independently order care and custody, and further, the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and his defense counsel, i.e., the Defendant’s refusal of narcotic drugs

However, the defendant was found to have committed a second offense without receiving proper treatment in this case.