The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant does not seem to have purchased narcotics, etc. in a systematic and professional manner, and most of them seem to have been administered by themselves or purchased for the purpose of medication together with others.

The Defendant cooperated in the investigation of drug offenders.

The Defendant recognized all of the crimes up to the judgment of the court, and is against his mistake.

The Defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, in addition to the suspension of indictment prior to each of the instant crimes.

On the other hand, however, narcotics-related crimes are highly likely to cause harm and harm to the society as well as individuals due to their toxicity.

In 2013, the defendant has a record of being sentenced to suspension of indictment for the same kind of crime.

However, the Defendant administered 10 philophones over 10 times for a short period of less than four months.

In light of the frequency and contents of the crime, the defendant seems to be addicted to narcotics.

The defendant did not merely arrange to administer narcotics, but also arrange to sell and purchase narcotics to others so that additional crimes can be committed.

The crime of this case is committed during the period of repeated crime of the crime of this case.

In the court of the first instance, a certificate of cooperation in investigation related to G arrest was submitted, but this situation seems to have already been considered in determining the punishment in the court below.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing circumstances, including the defendant's age, sex, criminal record, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the punishment imposed by the court below is too heavy.

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

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.