The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for two years and six months, additional collection of KRW 97,300) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment appears to have the attitude of the Defendant to recognize all the crimes of this case and to reflect his mistake, the amount of the penphone imported by the Defendant appears to be relatively small, and the Defendant’s phiphone was not deemed to have been imported for the purpose of distributing phiphones, and the entire amount of the phiphones possessed by the Defendant was seized, and the fact that the Defendant had family members to support the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed in collusion with the Defendant who imported approximately 0.37 g of philophones and administered some of them over three times, and the nature of the crime is inferior. The risk of recidivism is high, in particular, the import of philophones is likely to cause the spread of narcotics and additional crimes resulting therefrom, and thus, the crime is more serious than the simple medication. The Defendant is disadvantageous to the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was subject to the suspension of the execution of the crime of philophones in around 209.

On the other hand, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The above circumstances are as follows: the defendant's age, character and conduct, health, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions recorded in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (No less than four years to eight months), are as stated in the judgment of the lower court.

In full view of these factors, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below determined by deviating from the lower limit of the recommended sentencing criteria is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant.