The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is a favorable condition that the Defendant led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case while committing a crime of this case; the amount of penphones handled by the Defendant is not large; the Defendant appears to have committed a crime of destroying property in the case of 2016 Height 6539 by contingency while under the influence of alcohol; the Defendant did not want the punishment of the Defendant by agreement with the victim of the crime of destroying property in the case of 2016 Height 6539; the Defendant did not want the punishment of the said victim; the crime of intrusion upon residence and property and the victim of special property damage in the case of 2017 Height 515, the Defendant did not want the punishment of the Defendant; the Defendant cooperate with the investigation into other cases; the Defendant appears to have very good health condition; and the Defendant appears to support the mother.

However, in light of the addiction of narcotics and the harm caused by the administration of narcotics, etc., the crime of narcotics need to be strictly punished and eradicated; the Defendant committed a crime of intrusion upon residence, destruction of property, and damage to special property among the cases 515 highestestest 2017 highestestest 515 cases in the state of cryponing, which shows the harm and risk of the crime of narcotics. This is a typically bad crime. The crime of providing phiphones like the instant crime is highly likely to be subject to criticism, and the Defendant had been punished several times due to the crime related to narcotics or the damage of property. In particular, the Defendant committed a crime related to narcotics at the Daegu District Court on November 7, 2014 without being aware of the fact that he/she committed a repeated crime even though he/she was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and two months after the execution of the sentence was completed on August 9, 2015.

The scope of recommendations given by the Supreme Court on the instant crime in the sentencing guidelines, including the above circumstances.