2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In particular, the criminal defendant has been punished several times for the same crime related to narcotics and has committed a second offense without being aware of the fact that he/she was in the period of repeated crime.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, since it is apparent that the "0.01g" in the second sentence of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the "0.1g", it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.