The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, collection 1.3 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that there was a history of punishment for the same kind of crime in the judgment, and the circumstance of cooperation in the investigation is confirmed, but considering the fact that the person committed the phiphones continuously before and after the cooperation in the investigation, it is judged that the person was addicted to philophones, and the punishment imposed by the court below is the scope of the recommended punishment set out in the sentencing guidelines (one year and six months to five years).

1. Type 2 (person subject to special sentencing) (referring to marijuana, flag, item (b), (c), etc.) (referring to a person subject to suspended execution for not more than 3 years): The area subject to aggravated punishment (decision on the territory of recommendation) of the same criminal history and the area subject to aggravated punishment: One year and 6 months to 4 years; and

2. Type 3 (Determination of the area of recommendation): Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 10 months nor more than 2 years.

3. The result of the increase in the final scope of punishment by multiple offenses (Article 1/2 subparag. 1/3 of the upper limit of crime No. 2 of the upper limit of crime No. 1): The lower limit of one year to six months, five years, and eight years, and the fact that no new data on sentencing have been submitted in the trial at the same time that there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, the number of crimes, and the number of penphones handled, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too large.

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 without merit.