The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for a term of two years, confiscation, additional collection of 5.3 million won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, by recognizing all of the instant crimes, appears not only to cooperate in the investigation but also to repent of his mistake.

The defendant cooperates in the investigation of narcotics-related crimes by many people, which can be evaluated as an important cooperation in investigation.

Defendant did not have any criminal record identical to each of the crimes in this case.

It seems that the health status of the defendant is not good.

(The defendant is a person infected with human immunodeficiency virus). The defendant is under the influence of proficial intention.

The mother of the defendant, friendship, patriarch, etc. appeals against the defendant.

However, it is not easy to detect narcotics-related crimes due to their characteristics, and the risk of recidivism is high, as well as negative impacts on society as a whole due to declimatic toxicity, etc., so strict punishment is required.

The defendant purchased 125 penphones, sold them three times, received them once, administered them four times, and possessed them once, and the responsibility for the crime is hot.

The crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the purchase of each penphone as shown in the attached Table 1 to 67 of the judgment below was committed during the period of repeated crime.

The defendants have a past record of criminal punishment for all up to six times (up to two times of punishment, and up to four times of fines).

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and result of the crime, etc., as well as the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines for the defendant (see attached Form 2, e.g., imprisonment between August and September, 200), no new circumstance exists to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed at the time of the trial, and the sentencing of the court below has been changed.