The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) shall be too unreasonable; and

2. Considering the fact that the crime of narcotics, such as the instant crime, is not easy to detect due to its characteristics, the risk of recidivism is high, as well as the negative impact on the society as a whole, and that the importation of narcotics, etc., is likely to cause the spread of narcotics and its additional crimes, and thus requires strict punishment compared to the simple medication, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant with severe penalty corresponding to the relevant criminal liability.

However, considering all of the circumstances, such as the fact that the amount of penphones imported pushed by the defendant is small amount, the whole amount of the penphones imported by the defendant is confiscated and distributed by the defendant or the defendant is not administered for the purpose of sale, the fact that the defendant does not have any record of criminal punishment in Korea, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in Korea, and that the defendant reflects depth in recognition of the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., the scope of sentencing under the sentencing guidelines falls under the basic area of Type 3 (narcotics, f. (b) and the scope of sentencing) among the basic areas of sentencing guidelines for narcotics crimes, such as the export and import of the sentencing guidelines for the sentencing guidelines for the crime of this case.

The first instance court that sentenced the punishment, which is the lowest limit of the applicable sentencing, seems to be appropriate by lowering the lower limit of the applicable sentencing.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the first instance sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.