The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Three injections (No. 1) that have been seized shall be confiscated.

1. The sentenced by the court below to the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is found to possess a 0.1992 g phiphones after the defendant administered phiphones twice.

In light of the addiction of narcotics and the harm caused by medication of narcotics, etc., there is a need to strictly punish and eradicate narcotics offenses, and the defendant's family members wished to repeat the defendant's prior criminal punishment over two times as the same crime (one time, one suspended execution). However, the defendant is living in the past for 15 years, the amount of the penphone handled by the defendant is relatively small, the number of the penphones is already seized by the investigation agency, the part of the penphones is already seized by the investigation agency, the statement of the drug supplier (one regular line) who provided the penphones to the defendant by the investigation agency, and the fact that the defendant's family members want to inform other criminals related to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act known to the investigation agency, the intention of the defendant's family members appears to be simple in possession of the defendant's wife, and the guidelines for sentencing of the crime in this case, the guidelines for sentencing of the defendant's basic crime in this case and the scope of the punishment of the defendant in this case.

In light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence sentenced by the lower court is deemed unfair, in view of all of the following factors: (a) the term of imprisonment from October to two years; and (b) the term of imprisonment from October to August; and (c) the term of the final recommendation based on the aggravation of multiple crimes; and (d) the term of imprisonment from October to August; and (e) the term of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is justified.