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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crimes even though he had been already punished several times for the same crime, and committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crimes without being limited to the medication of phiphones, and the crime related to narcotics, etc. is highly likely to repeat crimes due to their toxicity, etc. and is highly harmful to individuals and society, and thus requires strict punishment. In full view of all the sentencing factors as shown in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, frequency of the crime of this case, the circumstance and motive leading to the crime of this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too excessive and it cannot be said that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.