The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health unit and the Defendant expressed their intention to recognize each of the instant crimes, thereby seriously against their mistake, and to stop narcotics, etc. after release.

During the investigation process, the Defendant also cooperated with the investigation of the related persons who sold phiphones.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the number of crimes by the Defendant, such as accepting and administering chophonephones and marijuana, is not a large number of times, and there are many records of punishment for the same kind of crimes. In particular, the multiple offenses of this case during the period of repeated crimes, and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, criminal conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and method of committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, are considered to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account various circumstances within the scope of the sentencing criteria even when considering all favorable circumstances alleged by the Defendant are considered.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.