The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not guilty of the fact that he administered a penphone on December 14, 2015 and January 17, 2016.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On December 14, 2015, the witness E’s statement in the lower court’s court’s court’s court on the assertion of misunderstanding of fact is unclear. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant and E continued to purchase and divide the opphone on December 14, 2015, and the opphone was administered together with the opphone.

In full view of the facts stated, the Defendant administered philophones on December 14, 2015.

may be appointed by a person.

2) On January 17, 2016, K consistently received a request from the investigative agency to the lower court on January 17, 2016 from the Defendant to the lower court, and consistently made it possible for the Defendant to administer a phiphone so that the Defendant can administer a phiphone by keeping the scopon incopon to the scopon.

When considering the fact that K is punished for the administration of phiphones due to the above statement, K's statement can be believed and therefore, the Defendant administered phiphones on January 17, 2016.

full recognition may be accepted.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is rejected.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, if the Defendant again committed the instant crime of the same kind during the period of suspension of execution due to a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (competence), took into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and motive for committing the crime, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.