The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who is a psychotropic drug, misjudgments the fact that the Defendant did not possess or have another person drink the Melopon (hereinafter “philopon”; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”), but did not have any other person drink the philopon, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant possessed a philopon and used philopon to another person, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Although the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the instant facts charged: (a) around 04:40 on May 14, 2013, the Defendant: (b) stated that the “Dju store” located in C in C, while drinking together with E and female helpers, and that F would have a word to E; (c) thereby, F would have a dysculing the volume of a dysculous dys that F had a dysculed f where he had a dysculed f where he had a dysculed f where he had a dysculed f where he had a dysculed f. The Defendant had F returned to the next dysculic f. Accordingly, the Defendant used the dysopon to F. 2). The lower court found the facts charged.

3. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below's judgment that held that the defendant used the phiphonephone in the F, on the following grounds: (a) considering the relationship between the defendant and E; (b) the victim's statement; (c) the physical nature of E; and (d) the circumstances after the crime and the result of the appraisal of narcotics, etc. with the defendant and E, the court below's judgment that deemed that the defendant used the phiphone in possession of the phiphone.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. On the assertion of unfair sentencing