The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (a two years and six months, confiscation and collection) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is unreasonable as it is excessively unreasonable compared to the extent of the defendant's responsibility.

2. The lower court, while considering the fact that each of the crimes pertaining to the instant narcotics, etc. was highly likely to be criticized, such as making the female-friendly implements contacted with narcotics, etc. and failing to faithfully perform the duty of military service, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a punishment more minor statutory maximum than the lower limit of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, taking into account the motive and circumstance of the crime committed in violation of the Military Service Act, and the circumstances favorable to the Defendant. In so doing, it is difficult to say that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is excessively excessive, even considering the fact that the Defendant made a confession of all the crimes, and that the Defendant’s family members and those of the Defendant want to take the Defendant’s preemptive action against the Defendant.

3. According to the conclusion, Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it has no reason to file an appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendant’s appeal is clearly erroneous in the entry and departure record and the Defendant’s statement (Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure (Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure).