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 for 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 for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered.

(A) The Defendant asserted that he cooperates in the investigation of narcotics crimes in the trial. However, according to the results of the fact inquiry by the head of Busan East Police Station of this Court, he does not seem to have been engaged in the investigation as alleged in the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the circumstances and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it excessively exceeds the scope of discretion.

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 the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.