The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The court below set forth the following as follows: ① Crimes related to narcotics, etc., which were administered closely, are not easy to detect due to the characteristics of the administration; ② Crimes related to narcotics, etc., which are likely to result in social harm due to the risk of recidivism and other crimes; ③ the Defendant merely administered or smoke narcotics, and repeatedly distributed marijuana during the process for a long time, without any restriction; ② Transfer of marijuana handled in the process; particularly, in the case of the crime of selling narcotics under the so-called "Saeman" Act, which the Defendant committed, the following factors are considered to have a significant negative impact on the society as a whole, such as facilitating the spread of narcotics crimes because the seller and buyer are not exposed to face-to-face exposure; ② the Defendant is the primary offender without any criminal power; ② the Defendant appears to be favorable to the Defendant; ③ the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence, intelligence, environment, motive, means, means, results, family relations, etc.; and ② the Defendant’s punishment was imposed for three years and its additional collection.

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Furthermore, there is no circumstance that the lower court’s decision on the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable, considering the circumstances that the lower court had already considered while determining the Defendant’s punishment, and considering other materials presented in the course of the trial on the sentencing of the lower court, there is no reason to recognize that the lower court’s decision on the sentencing is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant.