The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel stated that the defendant was unaware of the fact that the goods he sold were narcotics at the time of the crime of this case. However, the defendant and the defense counsel acknowledged all the facts charged in this case from the court of the original instance, and clearly stated that the grounds of appeal are limited to “indubity” in the court of the original instance.

2. The crime of this case is determined that the Defendant sold and administered psychotropic drugs (a synthetic marijuana or MDMA).

The court below determined punishment against the defendant by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the crime of narcotics, etc., committed a serious harm to the society as it may cause another crime due to the physical and mental disorder of an individual, harm to the public health, and serious toxicity and sculism; (b) the defendant purchased synthetic marijuana for the purpose of sale in a foreign country and sold it several times; (c) there seems to be a situation that the defendant dealt with and distributed various kinds of narcotics through soliciting intermediary distribution books; (d) the quantity of synthetic marijuana seized at the time of arrest was holding a large quantity of narcotics at approximately 480g; and (e) the defendant committed the crime of this case by using the status in college after entering the university due to studying abroad; and (e) the defendant committed the crime of this case, which is equivalent to the punishment for the crime of this case. However, although the court below recognized that the defendant committed the crime of this case by taking into account the following factors: (a) there was no history of punishment domestically; (b) the synthetic marijuana and MDMA acquired most favorable profits from the crime of this case.

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been determined by fully considering the above various circumstances, and is different from the sentencing conditions of the lower court.