The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, collection 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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

Meanwhile, according to the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, the equipment provided as a crime under the same Act should be confiscated as necessary. According to the records of this case, one disposable injection machine (No. 2) seized by the Defendant from the Busan District Prosecutors' Office in 2018 under the pressure of No. 188, two plastic bags (No. 3) and two plastic bags (No. 5) are the equipment provided for the crime of carrying philon as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below erred by omitting the above seized even though it had been confiscated from the Defendant, but the principle of the prohibition of disadvantageous change under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies to confiscation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2020, Dec. 8, 1992). Thus, the court below's judgment shall not be reversed on the ground that only the Defendant appealed the confiscation in this case.

However, the application of statutes in the judgment of the court below is subject to confiscation.