The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination is based on the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant had an attitude to recognize and reflect both his or her mistake in the first instance, and that some of the circumstances can be considered in the living environment of the defendant.

However, the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment due to the same crime, went to the crime of this case at least two months after the completion of the execution of the sentence by being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, appears to have never been shown. The Defendant did not transfer philophones which the Defendant had a large number of times when he administered philophones. The Defendant, who was the co-defendant B of the lower court, exercised the right of administration and administered philophones together with the above B, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That since the judgment of the court below omitted the list 1 of the daily list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below in error, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below is ex officio to add 1 of the list of crimes attached to the following annexed crimes