The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment, 1 year and 6 months, confiscation, and collection 1.7 million won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, by recognizing all of the instant crimes, appears not only to cooperate in the investigation but also to repent of his mistake.

The Defendant cooperationd with a large number of criminal investigations related to narcotics.

It seems that the economic situation of the defendant is not good.

The defendant is under the influence of provoking the intention of provoking.

The defendant's live-in person, his wife, etc. appeals against the defendant.

However, it is not easy to detect narcotics-related crimes due to their characteristics, and the risk of recidivism is high, as well as negative impacts on society as a whole due to declimatic toxicity, etc., so strict punishment is required.

The defendant sold a philopon once, purchased the philopon once, accepted it once, administered it once, and possessed it twice.

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the previous departments, etc.

All the defendants have a record of criminal punishment for 15 times (6 times of punishment, suspension of execution once of punishment, and eight times of fines) and four times of such records (2 times of punishment and two times of fines) are criminal records of the same kind as each of the crimes of this case.

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.