The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment defendant led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.

Of the philophones manufactured by the defendant, the quantity sold is limited to 8.5g, and the remainder is seized, and has not been distributed actually.

The defendant has no record of criminal punishment except once sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

The defendant actively cooperated in the investigation and tried to arrest other drug offenders.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

The Defendant made manufacturing facilities in various drugs and tools, and made philophones at the end of several times in a densely-populated area, and manufactured them.

It is about 330g of philophones that are closely and manufactured by the method of crime.

The Defendant sold part of the philophones manufactured by the Defendant several times, and administered part of the philophones by himself.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering such circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances, and result of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions in the oral argument, including the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is not heavy.

The defendant's argument of sentencing 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 defendant's appeal is groundless.