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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

Although the criminal defendant was finally punished for the same crime in 2012 at a considerable interval from the criminal act in this case, the criminal defendant's failure to repeat the criminal act in this case, and his family members want the defendant's preference, it is recognized that the criminal act related to narcotics is not only to avoid the body and mind of an individual due to their hallcence, toxicity, etc., but also to severely punish the criminal act in this case because of the high risk of undermining the health and social safety of the people. Although the criminal defendant had been punished several times including imprisonment for the same crime, he/she again committed the criminal act in this case even though he/she had been punished several times, it cannot be said that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all the factors such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, the process and motive leading to the criminal act in this case, and the circumstances before and after the criminal act.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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