2. The Defendant appears not only to cooperate with the investigation by recognizing the facts of the instant crime but also to repent of his mistake.

The father, etc. of the defendant appeals against the defendant.

However, it is not easy to detect narcotics-related crimes due to their characteristics, and the risk of recidivism is high, as well as negative impacts on society as a whole due to declimatic toxicity, etc., so strict punishment is required.

The defendant was sentenced to punishment for violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. and completed its execution, and again committed the crime of this case even during the period of repeated crime.

All the defendants have a record of criminal punishment for ten times (two times of punishment, one time of suspended execution, and seven times of fines) and two times among them are criminal records of the same kind as the crimes of this case.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added to all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed due to the fact that the sentencing of the court below is too unfair because it exceeds the reasonable discretion range.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.

However, the lower court’s judgment on September 30, 201 is clear that “ September 30, 2017” in two pages 1 is a clerical error in the “ September 28, 2017,” and thus, ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.