The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation of seized evidence Nos. 1, 2, 950,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Although there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and subsequently failed to repeat again, and that the defendant's health condition is not good, the defendant committed the crime of this case in the same kind again despite the fact that the defendant had been sentenced to criminal punishment for 2 years of suspended execution in October 2004 for narcotics such as phiphone medication, marijuana smoking, etc., the defendant committed the crime of this case again in the same kind, the purchase and administration of phiphonephones over several times, and the detection of phiphone ingredients from the defendant's hair, which are disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, the means and consequence leading to the crime of this case, the situation before and after the crime, age, character and behavior, occupation, and family relations, etc., it cannot be said that the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.

However, the lower court erred by applying Articles 60(1)2, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. as at June 8, 2012, with regard to the trade of philopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopop from the lower court.