The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced against the defendant (the imprisonment of three years, confiscation, and collection of 1.4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The following facts are favorable: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake; (b) U.S. having de facto marital relationship with the victim of special property damage, injury, or special intimidation does not want to be punished; and (c) reported the instant crime for the edification of the Defendant and made efforts for the rehabilitation of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant is also making efforts to not repeat the instant crime.

On the other hand, in light of the toxicity of narcotics and the harmful effects of the medication, there is a need to strictly punish and eradicate the crimes of narcotics; the number of the crimes of this case is very large; the defendant's number of crimes of this case is provided and sold; the remaining crimes also inflict bodily injury on the victim of de facto marriage, threaten him/her into food and knife; and damage the glass of the car with golf loan, and the nature of the crime is not very good; the defendant has been committed several times of criminal convictions; in particular, on June 26, 2015, he/she committed each of the crimes of this case without care even after the execution of the punishment was completed on May 21, 2016.

In full view of the above circumstances and the facts that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, all of the factors indicated in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and consequence of a crime, and the scope of recommended sentences based on the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.