Defendant

C: Imprisonment for eight months, suspension of execution, two years, observation of protection, order to attend education, and collection of additional charges: Imprisonment for one year and additional collection;

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although there are circumstances that the Defendants recognized the crimes and cooperation in the investigation into narcotics crimes, the Defendants have the record of criminal punishment for the crimes committed several times, and the maternity prosecutor also took the phiphone training reaction, Defendant D administered phiphones one time during the period of repeated crime of the same kind, and Defendant D administered the phiphones one time during the crime of the same repeated crime, and was charged with the crime of the same kind, since the crime of narcotics was extremely harmful to the society, there is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence was sentenced, and there is no other reason to consider the Defendants’ age, health, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all the circumstances presented in the lower court’s judgment.

Therefore, the defendants' argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (as to Defendant C’s lawsuit costs, the proviso of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply).