The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (such as imprisonment of three years and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime is that the Defendant imported philophones and campings, a local mental medicine, and stayed in the Republic of Korea without valid status of stay.

It is recognized that the defendant fully recognizes the crime of this case, the whole amount of the defendant's sealed philophones and campings has been seized, and have not been distributed during the time, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea.

However, narcotics-related crimes are not easy to detect in light of their characteristics, there are high risk of recidivism, and serious negative impacts on society such as avoiding the body and mind of people due to the toxicity, etc., and in particular, narcotics-related crimes need to be strictly punished because the possibility of spreading narcotics and resulting in additional crimes is high.

In addition, taking into account the fact that the amount of penphones imported by the defendant is not large, and that the defendant committed the above crime while staying in the country with the escape of the period of stay, the defendant's liability for the crime is not less minor, and it is inevitable to punish the defendant accordingly.

In full view of the various conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, as well as various conditions of sentencing, which are revealed in the pleading process, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to be within the scope of appropriate sentence corresponding to its liability, and the sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion that the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and unfair.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.