The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant on the summary of the reasons for appeal (the point of the administration of scopon medication on July 21, 2017: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and the remainder of the crimes: 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant recognized, against all of the instant crimes, and is disavated and disavated.

There are circumstances that may be favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the crime of selling phiphones, which is not a simple medication, appears to be an attempted crime, and that social relation is evident, and that some of the crimes of this case are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the drug crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive, and that a punishment should be determined in consideration of the equity between the above crimes

However, the court below seems to have determined the punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and it is difficult to find any changes in the sentencing conditions in the past.

Moreover, the Defendant again committed each of the instant crimes since he/she was under investigation and trial due to drug crimes or even one month after the judgment became final and conclusive. As such, it is necessary to isolate from society for a certain period of time because the degree of addiction is not less and less than that of addiction.

The decision is judged.

It is necessary to punish the criminal liability strictly.

In addition, considering the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal of this case is without merit.