The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment (for each of the crimes of paragraphs 1 and 2 in the original judgment, four months of imprisonment, and 10,000 won of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of paragraphs 3 and 3 in the same facts constituting the crime) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the defendant is divided into all the facts constituting the crime of this case including a part of the criminal facts which the court below rejected until the court below's judgment, and that the defendant seems to have an opportunity to reflect the crime of this case through the life of confinement for not less than seven months, that the amount of penphones administered by the defendant is not much high, and that the balance between the crimes of this case of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court below should be considered in the case where the judgment of the court below is judged simultaneously with the crime of fraud which became final and conclusive, and that the defendant shows his intention to continuously receive mental and medical treatment and discontinue narcotics is considered as a mitigated sentencing factor.

However, in light of the fact that the medication of narcotics causes serious harm to the society and the state’s soundness due to its toxicity, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime before the crime in this case and completed the enforcement, and then, was sentenced to one year and six months, and then sentenced to imprisonment for a same crime in the original judgment within the repeated crime period, and then completed the enforcement, and again, committed the crime in paragraph (3) of the facts constituting the crime in the original judgment within the repeated crime period without being aware of the completion of the enforcement, and other various factors stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing such as the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc. as indicated in the records and arguments in this case, it cannot be deemed unfair for the court below to have imposed the defendant too much on the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.