The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) of the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant, who is an employee of the drinking house, had the victim ambamine amba amba ambamine. In light of the means and methods, the crime is very poor.

There are a lot of transfers from the defendant's possession of Mampamins.

Narcotics crimes are highly likely to repeat crimes, and social harm is also very high to punish them.

The defendant has a past record of criminal punishment twice, including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment.

However, the defendant is against himself while committing a crime.

The defendant agreed with the victim who has Metetra ambamine widely, and the above victim does not want to be punished against the defendant.

There is no record that the defendant was punished for the same crime.

The above circumstances and the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, etc.

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to fifteen years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Nos. 1 and 2 crimes [Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (Determination of Punishment)] [Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.]; 01. Medication, simple possession, etc. (Type 3];

Items c) and c.

Title [Special Convicts] None [The area of recommendations and the scope of recommendations] basic area, 10 to 2 years of imprisonment

B. The scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: In full view of 10 to 3 years (1/2 of the upper limit of crimes No. 1) imprisonment, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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