The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The confession of a defendant by misunderstanding the legal principles constitutes a case where there is a reason to suspect the voluntariness, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt in accordance with Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Considering the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and against whom unfair sentencing was imposed, and cooperates in arresting F, etc., which is the sales books of philphones, the fact that the Defendant did not impose a short sentence and treatment, and that economic situation is not good, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and KRW 7.3 million of penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Even if it is assumed that the confession of the defendant was made by deception of the investigator in charge, the court below did not adopt the defendant's statement in an investigative agency as evidence of conviction, and even if the defendant's statement was excluded from the defendant's statement in an investigative agency, as long as it is sufficient to recognize each of the charges of this case based on other evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

3. Considering the circumstances alleged in the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, narcotics-related crimes need to be strictly punished, in light of the harmful effects on individuals or society, and the volume of phone purchase and the frequency of medication, etc. of each of the crimes of this case, the Defendant’s criminal liability is not less than six times, and the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, even during the period of identical repeated crimes, and even during the period of repeated crimes of the same kind. As such, in light of the fact that the Defendant repeatedly commits narcotics-related crimes, it is doubtful whether the Defendant’s reflect, provoking, and treatment is true, and that the Defendant escaped during the trial of 2016Da3031 decided on the lower judgment.