The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment and additional collection) on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the circumstances, such as the confession of the Defendant to commit the instant crime, and the depth of his mistake, the fact that the Defendant reported to an investigative agency via K, the Defendant’s wife, after committing the instant crime, appears to have voluntarily surrendered, and the investigation agency appears to have cooperated with the relevant investigation by making a statement about the Defendant with respect to L who provided the Mepta (hereinafter “Mepphone”), and having the Defendant be detained, etc.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been administered by the defendant about 0.03g of philophones. The crime of this case is highly poor in light of the applicable law and contents of the crime. The defendant has been sentenced to two times the suspension of the execution of the same crime and one criminal punishment once a fine. In particular, on June 20, 2014, the defendant was sentenced to two years the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act in Busan District Court on the grounds of the violation of the Act at the Busan District Court on June 20, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 28, 2014, the crime of this case was committed again during the suspension of the execution of the sentence, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the judgment below, and the punishment of the defendant, age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc. falls under the scope of imprisonment with prison labor for the same or similar crimes of this case, and the scope of imprisonment with prison labor for six months or more.

In full view of internal points, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable because it is too big.