The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the appeal (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, who made a confession of the instant crime, and repents his mistake.

The defendant seems to have received philophones from E without compensation and failed to meet the pure impulses.

The defendant is given or received solely for administration of the above phion and there is no fact that he sold it and provided it for distribution.

In addition, the defendant seems to have been living relatively in good faith by operating the electricity company or serving as a director before the crime of this case is committed.

However, it is necessary to strictly punish narcotics-related crimes not only because they avoid the body and mind of an individual due to their crypism, toxicity, etc., but also are highly likely to harm the health and social safety of the people.

The crime of this case is not against the nature of the crime because the defendant received or administered philophones.

The Defendant already had the record of having been sentenced to imprisonment five times for a drug crime, and committed the instant crime before five years have passed since he was sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime. The possibility of criticism is high.

Considering the various circumstances, including the above circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing a crime, frequency of a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.