The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (a three-year imprisonment, confiscation and collection) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is unreasonable as it is excessively unreasonable compared to the extent of the Defendant’s responsibility.

2. The court below held that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor, which is less exceptionally than the lower limit of the recommended range according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court, after considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant imported a large quantity of camblops (the camphonephone, hereinafter referred to as "cambops") and committed the crime of giving and receiving, administering, and taking account of the fact that the responsibility for the crime was heavy to the defendant, but most of the cambops handled by the defendant was seized, that the defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment, that the defendant's family members and relatives want to take the cambops, etc., and that the court below sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor with prison labor, which is less exceptionally than the lower limit of the recommended range according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court. However, the court below did not seem to have determined the punishment properly within the scope of reasonable sentencing discretion (the defendant is subject to the defendant's major order to the punishment of G in this case.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.