2. If there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Narcotics crimes are not likely to be exposed due to their characteristics, but are highly likely to repeat crimes, as well as to have high risk of recidivism.

In particular, narcotics import crimes may result in spreading and adding crimes, and there is a need to strictly cope with narcotics crimes in order to protect our society and its members from narcotics crimes which have recently been rapidly spreading.

The grounds for the Defendant’s assertion of sentencing elements in this court are already discovered in the proceedings of the lower court’s oral argument, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with regard to the matters subject to sentencing and the sentencing criteria

Considering the circumstances that the lower court rendered on the grounds of sentencing comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant pleadings, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable since it was made within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.