The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below is too heavy (one year and eight months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection).

2. The Defendant asserts that the sentencing should be taken account of the cooperation in the investigation of the drug offender S.

However, according to the results of the inquiry into the facts of the U.S. National Police Agency, the person who reported the S has no evidence to confirm the relevance between the above information and the defendant.

Along with the above investigation cooperation, the defendant had a certain degree of interest in the defendant

Also, it is difficult to view the judgment of the court below as a cooperation to the extent of changing the sentencing.

In addition, considering all the conditions of the argument and the records of the instant case including favorable circumstances (such as confessions, cooperation with investigation, etc. that are less likely to repeat the crime) and unfavorable circumstances (such as the provision of philophones to many persons, etc.), the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion, in light of the following as a whole: Defendant’s age character and character intelligent environment; Defendant’s motive means of crime; Defendant’s motive means of crime; and circumstances after crime.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s sentencing is appropriate, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure). However, the lower court’s ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, which clearly states that “4. H is a clerical error in the facts constituting the crime of the crime of the 2017 upper group 2393 case,” shall be deemed “3. Handphone delivery to H,” and “5. Handphone possession” shall be deemed “4. Handphone possession,” and the part of “the pertinent legal provisions and the choice of punishment for the crime of the 1. Offences” in the application of the law.