The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant: (a) received and assisted each other’s philophones and marijuana on four occasions; (b) assisted the trade of marijuana once; and (c) administered and smoked each philophones and marijuana on one occasion.

The fact that the defendant does not play a specialized role as a broker for narcotics for profit, that has served as an important role in arresting other narcotics offenders in cooperation with an investigation agency, and that he was unable to adapt properly to school or military life from the juvenile reporter to school or military life, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, beyond administering or smoking philophones and marijuana, the Defendant spreads narcotics by acting as a broker in exchanging or trading phiphones and marijuana over several occasions, and the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of execution on December 2014 for the same kind of crime in which Hub Tobacco and marijuana were sold or smoked, and then again commits each of the crimes of this case at the time when 4,5 months elapsed after the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of execution.

The lower court seems to have determined the sentence by taking into account such circumstances, the sentencing criteria of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, and all of the sentencing factors in the instant trial process, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship, living environment, etc.

When the sentencing of the lower judgment is fully taken into account, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court is too excessive and unfair.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept the defendant's unfair argument.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, “P” of 3rd 11 of the “a summary of evidence” of the lower judgment is obvious that it is a clerical error, and thus, it is correct as “L” and “aggravating concurrent crimes” of “the application of the Act” in the proviso of Article 42 is obvious.