The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case in depth.

In addition, among the instant crimes, the crime that the Defendant purchased and administered the so-called “sonphone” around April 2012 shall be considered in relation to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive on January 28, 2014.

Furthermore, among the crimes in this case, the Defendant’s crime of medication and smoking around February 2015 should be considered in favor of the Defendant, such as the frequency of the crime.

However, the crime of this case was committed on or around April 2012 after the Defendant purchased a penphone, and administered it, and thereafter the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor due to a crime trading or medication of a penphone on or around May 2013 and around July 2013, even though the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor on or around February 2015 during the repeated crime period, and the punishment of the illegality of the act is not somewhat weak.

In addition, the transaction and medication of narcotics are not only to avoid the body and mind of an individual due to their cryptism, toxicity, and radio wave, but also to harm the safety of society and cause the relevant crimes, so it is highly likely that the act may cause severe social harm and injury, so it is necessary to severely punish them.

Furthermore, in addition to the crimes against which the above judgment has become final and conclusive, there have been eight times of criminal punishment for the Defendant, and the favorable circumstances as seen earlier seems to have already been fully reflected in the judgment of sentencing of the lower court, and other various circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommendations for sentencing guidelines applicable to the instant crimes.