The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) on the defendant is too unlimited and unfair.

2. It is recognized that the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant made a confession of all the instant crimes and reflects his mistake in depth, and that the Defendant appears to have made a statement to an investigative agency as to the Defendant, who provided the Mepta (hereinafter “Handphone”) and marijuana.

However, the crime of this case is to deliver approximately 0.1g of philophones, administer approximately 0.03g of philophones, deliver approximately 1.21g of marith, in light of the method and contents of the crime. The defendant committed the crime of this case two times as the same crime, even though he had the record of criminal punishment once suspended execution, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the judgment of the court below, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, such as equity in sentencing with the same and similar cases, age, character, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing range of "one-half years of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by philophones" (hereinafter referred to as "one-half years of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.). The scope of punishment of "one-half years of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of Acts and subordinate statutes" among the sentencing guidelines.