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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognizes and reflects his/her own criminal act; (b) the Defendant submitted a written application for no penalty for the victim; and (c) having experienced economic difficulties.

Meanwhile, in light of the background, method, risk, etc. of the crime, it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim's application for the punishment was due to the victim's genuine statement against the defendant. Not only has been punished several times, including imprisonment for the same kind of crime, but also has been repeatedly committed during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime. The risk of repeating hallucinogenic substances is very high, and the act of inhaleing hallucinogenic substances is likely to lead to a dangerous violent crime by affecting the defendant's mental capacity and leading to a dangerous violent crime. The actual occurrence of such a result is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, the lower court comprehensively takes account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as revealed in the sentencing deliberation process of the lower court.