The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the circumstances against the defendant in light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspension of execution) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, and in order to maintain the defendant's livelihood and prevent recidivism, it is unreasonable for the court below to order the defendant to take a course of pharmacologic treatment for 80 hours.

2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant made a confession of all the crimes of this case and reflects the wrongness of the defendant, that the defendant imported a small amount of the penphone with a view to personal use, that the defendant's importation of the penphone with a view to personal use is less likely to be dangerous and harmful compared to other penphone import crimes, that the defendant actually administered or distributed the penphone in this case, that the defendant cooperates with the police investigation, that the crime of narcotics is highly likely to cause serious bad character in society, and that there is a need to strictly punish the crime. Although the defendant did not import the penphone for the purpose of distribution, the act of importing the penphone is not good, even if the defendant did not import the penphone for the purpose of distribution, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence on August 6, 2009 due to the same crime, and it seems that the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive of the defendant's environment, motive for the crime of this case, and its sentencing guidelines after the enactment of sentencing guidelines, its motive and motive for the crime of this case.

On the other hand, an order to attend a lecture is likely to commit a crime repeatedly without recognizing the criminal tendency, and it is necessary to punish and treat the offender concurrently.