The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the appeal (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. It seems that the defendant recognized his mistake and cooperates with investigation authorities.

The defendant has been living relatively in good faith while running the distribution business.

As the parents of the defendant are extremely old and healthy, the care of the defendant is provided by the care of the defendant, and there are circumstances that can be considered as necessary.

However, it is necessary to strictly punish narcotics-related crimes not only because they avoid the body and mind of an individual due to their crypism, toxicity, etc., but also are highly likely to harm the health and social safety of the people.

The crime of this case is that the defendant purchased, administered, or possessed philophones, and the quality of the crime is not less than that of the defendant.

The instant crime is a crime committed during the period of repeated crimes of the same kind, and even though the five times (four times of actual punishment, one time of suspended execution) of the same crime had the record of punishment, the instant crime is a serious violation by administering narcotics again.

It is difficult to see it.

The possibility of criticism is also high in terms of the fact that there are many philophones in the defendant's possession.

Considering the various circumstances, including the above circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing a crime, frequency of a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.