The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the penalty imposed by the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant made the entire confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and the fact that the investigative agency actively cooperates in the relevant investigation by actively making a statement on the upper line that purchased and sold the Mepta (hereinafter “Handphone”), etc.

However, the defendant has a past record of criminal punishment twice for the same crime. The crime of this case is that the defendant trades or administers a considerable amount of penphones over several occasions, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the decision of the court below is made, and various conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as equity in sentencing with the same and similar cases, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines (1) The scope of the sentence sentenced by the court below for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (f) by the sale of phiphonephones, etc. (f) the former guidelines for the sentencing of narcotics crimes (f) before revision on April 13, 2015 and May 15, hereinafter referred to as the "former guidelines for the sentencing of narcotics crimes"), and the scope of imprisonment with prison labor for six months (f) months or more with prison labor for each of the following crimes (f) constitutes an important range of imprisonment with prison labor for six months or six months.

In full view of the internal points, the sentence imposed by the court below is too vague.