The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

We examine whether the sentence of the lower court, which returned to the instant case, is too unreasonable in light of the content of the specific case.

1) The lower court: (a) took into account the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, such as ① the fact that the Defendant’s strong sense and toxicity caused serious harm to society, such as holding and medication of phiphones, providing and distributing them to E, etc., and that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even if he had been punished four times due to the same criminal record; (b) the Defendant is against the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant provided the investigative agency with the personal information of H, which is the upper line of the possession of the instant phiphones transport; and (b) given that the Defendant provided the Defendant with the personal information, which is the upper line of the possession of the instant phiphones transport. 2) The following circumstances may be considered as grounds for sentencing.

In other words, while the defendant is transported.