The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal ( Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that: ① a crime related to narcotics is highly likely to have a serious adverse impact on society as a whole; ② a defendant imported psychotropic drugs for the purpose of distribution; ② a large quantity of psychotropic drugs imported by the defendant shared the role with his accomplices and sold them to many buyers in excess of 200 times; ③ the defendant’s own account of the fact that the psychotropic drugs was administered by himself; ④ the defendant’s mistake and there was no record of criminal punishment; ④ the defendant took part in the crime according to F’s instructions; ⑤ the defendant took part in the crime; ⑤ the sales proceeds of the Defendant’s direct or actual acquisition of psychotropic drugs was not much high (the first instance court considered the scope of recommendations for the mass import of psychotropic drugs, which is the basic crime among the crimes in this case, to be sentenced to more than the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court, taking into account the following factors favorable to the Defendant: (a) the scope of recommendations for the mass import of psychotropic drugs, which is the basic crime in this case, was considered to fall under the minimum of seven to ten years, which is the aggravated scope of punishment).

Such determination of sentencing by the lower court is deemed to have been made within the reasonable scope of discretion by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, and the circumstances after the commission of the offense. Even in addition, considering the fact that there is a family member to support the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant is groundless, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.