The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the entire crime of this case, including the sale of phiphonephones, when it comes to the trial of the party, and that the health status, such as the current heart color, is not good.

However, the defendant did not simply possess or administer philophones, but did not sell them to others, and had his wife N who did not have experience in administering narcotics administered philophones.

In addition, the defendant has been punished for a crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act two times, and in particular, the crime of selling the narcotics in this case is likely to be criticized as being low during the period of suspension of execution of the same kind of drug crime, and in light of the defendant's results of the evaluation of hair and the timing of the administration of phiphones, it seems that the defendant's dependence on phiphones is high.

In addition, the sentence imposed by the court below is not heavier when comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc. and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records of this case and the change of the environment.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.