The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and two months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment appears to have been divided in depth and reflected by the Defendant, the number of crimes in this case is relatively small, and the Defendant actively cooperated with the investigation by the investigative agency to arrest a drug offender is an element for sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

However, without being aware that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of, even though he was in a repeated crime due to the same crime, was committed, and the liability for the instant crime is not less light; the quantity of the penphones possessed by the Defendant for sale ( approximately 4.56g) is not smaller; the Defendant is in need of isolation from the penphones for a considerable period of time, considering that the Defendant is dependent on the penphones; the lower court appears to have determined the punishment by fully taking into account all the aforementioned circumstances; and taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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