The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment, one hundred and twenty million won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is based on the following facts: although the defendant's mistake is recognized, and the defendant's crime of this case is deemed to be against the depth while cooperating with the investigation of other narcotics-related criminal; however, the defendant's crime of this case is deemed to seriously harm the social and national soundness due to the toxicity of narcotics, which requires strict punishment, and is not limited to the simple administration of phiphones, but also sells and provides phiphones to other persons; thus, the crime of this case is very poor; the defendant has been already punished eight times as imprisonment for the same kind of crime; the defendant again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, even though he had the record of having been punished eight times as imprisonment, taking into account the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, occupation and family relation, etc., the sentence 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 on the ground that it is without merit.

However, "a copy of each protocol of interrogation of suspect about I and N" among the "a summary of evidence" of the judgment below is "a copy of each protocol of interrogation of police officer's suspect about I, a copy of each protocol of interrogation of prosecutor's suspect about N," and "application of the law".

1. Article 4 (1) 1 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is apparent to be a clerical error under Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on the Control of Narcotics, etc., so it shall be corrected ex officio as correction under Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on the Criminal Procedure, and Article 57 of the Criminal Act, among the "application of the Act", is apparent to be erroneous. Thus, it is obvious that the "Article 57 of the Criminal Act, which is included in the number of days pending trial,"