The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the circumstances such as the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, the Defendant’s crime of this case was administered twice by Mepta, and the Defendant’s health status is not good due to urology, etc.

However, even though the defendant had been sentenced one time to imprisonment with prison labor and a suspended sentence for the same crime, he/she committed the crime in this case, and narcotics-related crimes are highly likely to cause severe social harm caused by toxicity of narcotics, etc. and harm the health and social safety of the people. Thus, it is necessary to impose severe punishment, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the decision of the court below is rendered, and various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case, such as equity in sentencing with like and similar cases, Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentence imposed by the court below constitutes the basic area of category 3 (b) and (c) of the "the administration and simple possession, etc.," of the sentencing guidelines for narcotics-related crimes, and according to the standards for the final punishment, the scope of punishment for imprisonment with prison labor is from 10 to 3 years.

In full view of the lower limit, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too large.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. 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.