The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered against the defendant is too unreasonable as the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor (two years and six months, confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is based on the following facts: although the defendant recognized the crime and cooperates in the narcotics investigation, there are circumstances that the defendant agreed with the bereaved family in the case of traffic death accidents, the defendant may have the record of criminal punishment for narcotics crimes; the crime of this case is a crime during the repeated crime period due to narcotics crimes; the crime of this case is highly likely to be strictly punished in light of the social prejudice of the society; the defendant's liability for the crime related to the distribution of narcotics, such as purchase, sale, provision, etc. is more important; the handling of narcotics is not significant; there are no new circumstances to consider the sentencing after the sentence of the court below; and there are no other new circumstances to consider the sentencing after the sentence of the court below; the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive for and frequency of the crime; etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is too undue.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 268Da268 of the Criminal Procedure Act (No. 6 of the court below’s decision). However, since it is apparent that the application of the law of the court below was omitted, it is corrected to add it ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. As to litigation costs, the proviso to Article 186(1) of the Criminal