The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment, 1 year and 6 months, confiscation, and collection 300,000 won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, by recognizing each of the instant crimes, has shown not only cooperation in the investigation but also his attitude to repent of his mistake.

The defendant cooperationd in the investigation of crimes related to narcotics by a third party.

The investigation of this case seems to have commenced by the report of the father of the defendant.

The defendant is under the influence of provoking the intention of provoking.

The parents of the defendant appeal against the defendant's wife.

However, it is not easy to detect narcotics-related crimes due to their characteristics, the risk of recidivism is high, as well as the negative impact on society as a whole due to declimatic toxicity, etc., so strict punishment is required.

The defendant administered philophones three times, and possessed one time, and the responsibility for the crime is minor, but is not easy.

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the same criminal record, and in particular, committed the crime of phiphone medication on March 13, 2019 and March 23, 2019 while being investigated as a crime related to narcotics.

The defendant has a past record of criminal punishment for 14 times (10 times of punishment, one suspended sentence, and three times of fines). Among them, 11 times of punishment (10 times of punishment, one suspended sentence) is the same criminal record as that of each of the crimes of this case.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added to all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed in the first instance court, and it is not determined that the sentencing of the court below is unfair because it goes beyond reasonable discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion