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 (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The judgment below did not have any new circumstance to consider sentencing, and the circumstances favorable to the defendant (the fact that the defendant recognizes his/her own responsibility for each of the crimes of this case, the defendant voluntarily surrenders himself/herself), unfavorable circumstances (the fact that the defendant began to commit a crime during the period of the same repeated offense, the remaining four times of the crime committed in the same kind, and the defendant committed a repeated act in the middle of one month thereafter, and made a false statement with the reversal of statements made by the investigative agency on several occasions concerning the upper vessels for which the defendant provided narcotics at the investigative agency, including the fact that the defendant did not comply with legitimate summons of the investigative agency, and the defendant was subject to several criminal punishment twice including criminal punishment for the same kind of crime). In full view of the various circumstances surrounding the records and arguments, including the age, character, environment, method of the crime, frequency and quantity of medication, and the final sentencing guidelines (3 months.

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