The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the appeal (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable conditions

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal (such as the fact that all of the crimes of this case are led to confessions, the fact that the number of phiphones handled is not large, and the circumstance that the Defendant received phiphones and administered them together with F and C in relation to the facts constituting the crime of this case as indicated in the judgment below) seems to have already been considered in the course of sentencing in the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

When comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and is too unreasonable. It cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant supports the bad condition of health, such as high blood pressure and sculing; (b) the commission of each of the instant crimes during the period of suspension of the execution; and (c) the solicitation of the administration of sculphones to C, which goes beyond the administration of sculphonephones; and (d) the commission of the administration of scul

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.