The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment, confiscation, confiscation, additional collection KRW 2,631,571) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is acknowledged as follows: (a) the Defendant, even though he is not a narcotics handler, delivers, assists in the sale of, purchases, and administers phiphones; and (b) delivers marijuana; (c) the Defendant recognizes and reflects the crime of this case; (d) actively cooperated in the investigation into narcotics; and (e) the Defendant’s health condition is not good.

However, the defendant had been punished several times for drug crimes, and even though he was punished for repeated crimes due to drug crimes, he went to the crime of this case in the end of two months after release. The nature of the crime is not good, the amount and frequency of penphones handled by the defendant, and the result of the appraisal of the defendant's hairs, etc., it seems that isolation from society is necessary for a certain period of time. Narcotics crimes are likely to result in decilization of individuals, homes, society and human society, and social depression beyond individual criminal acts. The court below also seems to have determined the punishment in consideration of the above circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as cooperation in investigation, etc., and the public cooperation report on the defendant was submitted to the court below. However, this is not due to the fact that the defendant has accumulated a new public service after the court below, but it seems that the defendant has already been in cooperation in investigation, which is confirmed in the evidence records of this case, but it appears that the court below has already reflected the result of the investigation.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the previous theories, the lower court’s punishment is too excessive.