2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary from the judgment of the first instance court when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that the opinion of the appellate court differs from the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant is against the recognition of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s health status is not good.

However, each of the crimes of this case was committed without being aware of the fact that the defendant purchased, administered, or received phiphonephones in light of the circumstances of the crime, etc., and the defendant had the record of criminal punishment several times due to the same drug crimes (the defendant was sentenced to the suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the purchase of phiphones and administered phiphones, as stated in the judgment of the court below) and each of the crimes of this case was committed without being aware of the crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and there is a need to strictly punish the crimes related to narcotics because the risk of recidivism is high due to its toxicity, etc., and there is no special change of circumstances that might change the sentence of the court below after the decision of the court below was made, and if all of the factors in the records and arguments of the crime of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., are too inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's status.