The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months, confiscation, and collection) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, by recognizing all of the instant crimes, shows his attitude to repent of his mistake.

It cannot be deemed that the degree of injury suffered by the victim is significantly significant.

No defendant shall have a criminal history against a crime involving narcotics.

It seems that the health status of the defendant is not good.

Defendant has family members to be supported.

The defendant is under the influence of medical treatment.

However, the defendant administered philophones over four occasions, smoked marijuana over two occasions, possessed marijuana once, and injured the victim in order to do so.

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime.

In the case of narcotics-related crimes, it is not easy to detect them due to their characteristics, and the risk of recidivism is high, as well as the negative impact on society as a whole due to declimatic toxicity, etc., it is necessary to severely punish them.

The Defendant has a past record of criminal punishment over 20 times (4 times of actual punishment, 16 times of fines). Of them, two times (one time of actual punishment, and one time of fines) are criminal records of the same kind as the instant injury.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added to all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed in the first instance court, and it is not determined that the sentencing of the court below is unfair because it goes beyond reasonable discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.