2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the Defendant recognized the instant crime and his family members want to have repeatedly run the instant crime in the depth, the instant case is that the Defendant has administered phiphones at his residence, and there is a great need to strictly punish the instant crime in light of the social malicious behavior. The instant case is a crime committed during the same repeated offense period; the Defendant has the history of criminal punishment, including narcotics crimes; the Defendant appears to be less vulnerable to the degree of addiction of the Defendant in light of the Defendant’s maternity appraisal result, the Defendant’s behavior after medication, etc.; the Defendant’s new motive and condition after the pronouncement of the lower judgment cannot be considered in light of all the following circumstances; and the Defendant’s new motive and circumstances after the pronouncement of the sentence; and the Defendant’s motive and circumstances after its oral sentencing cannot be considered.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (as to the costs of lawsuit, the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply).