2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Narcotics crimes are highly harmful to the addiction and society, and the Defendant is able to have the history of punishment for a drug-related crime six times, and the crime of this case constitutes a repeated crime.

B. The Defendant seems to not only committed the crime of narcotics of the second crime in the course of being investigated by an investigative agency due to the crime of narcotics of the first crime in the judgment, but also dependent on philophones in light of the results of the maternity appraisal.

When there is no special relationship or change of circumstances that can be newly considered in the trial of the party, and the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, occupation, family relationship (the aged parent who must support), motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, and the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (one year to three years in the aggravated area) are comprehensively taken into account, the punishment imposed by the court below is not severe within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.