2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant has cooperated in the investigation related to narcotics crimes, such as recognizing the instant crime and against his/her mistake, and making a statement on the upper line after self-denunciation to an investigative agency.

However, in light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed on one-time medication by the Defendant for another narcotics offender, it is necessary to strictly punish and eradicate the crime of this case in light of the addiction of narcotics and the harm caused by the circulation and medication of narcotics, etc., and the Defendant already committed the crime of this case even though he was sentenced to punishment for a multiple times due to a drug crime, and even if he was released from the office for the same crime, even though he was under the period of repeated crime, it cannot be said that the Defendant committed the crime of this case. In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, means and method of the crime, as well as the equality of sentencing with all kinds of similar crimes as shown in the arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Provided, That the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply to the bearing of litigation costs.