2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the Defendant has recognized the instant crime, the instant case committed various narcotics crimes, such as medication, possession, sale, provision, giving, receiving, smoking, and possession of marijuana. As such, there is a large need to strictly punish the instant crime in light of the social malicious nature of the crime. In particular, the crimes related to the distribution of narcotics, such as giving, receiving, selling, etc., cause the spread of the narcotic addict, and thus, the relevant crime is more serious; the Defendant has a number of records of criminal punishment including narcotics; the Defendant is a repeated crime committed during the period of punishment due to the same kind of narcotics crime; the Defendant cannot be considered after the sentence of the lower court; the Defendant’s age, health, motive, means and circumstances of the Defendant; and the following the following criminal act.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That the application of the law of the court below requires "the pertinent Article of the relevant criminal facts" (Article 4 of the court below's decision No. 8) as "the pertinent Article of the relevant law and the choice of punishment against the criminal facts" and add "the choice of imprisonment" (the last part of the judgment No. 4 of the court below's decision No. 12).