The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is unreasonable because the punishment (one year of imprisonment, additional collection 603,000 won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the Defendant received, administered, arranged for the transaction of, and possessed phiphonephones even though the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, and received, marijuana, and the Defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, and actively cooperated in the investigation of narcotics-related crimes.

However, even though the defendant had been subject to four times punishment for the same crime, he/she started an investigation into the crime of this case. The crime of this case was committed by H's information, and it seems that H appears that the degree of addiction was not easy in light of the defendant's fact that he/she appeared to have led to the administration of phiphones and smoking of marijuana, and the result of the defendant's an appraisal of his/her hair, etc., and it seems that it is necessary to isolate from society for a certain period of time. Narcotics crimes are likely to cause debrising to the whole of individuals, homes, society and human beings, and need to be punished strictly in that they are social pathology beyond individual criminal acts. The court below also submitted a public cooperation report to the defendant that is favorable to the defendant, such as cooperation in investigation, which is submitted to the court below. However, this is not because the defendant has accumulated new public services after the court below, but it seems that the defendant had already reflected the result of the investigation of this case in the evidence record of this case.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.