2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable conditions

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal (a confession and reflectivity, contingent crimes, the fact that there are no special criminal records other than juvenile protective disposition, and the parents' leading the Defendant) and the circumstances asserted by the Prosecutor (absent necessity of the crime of narcotics, and the nature of the crime in the process of smoking and arresting marijuana, etc.) seems to have been already considered in the course of sentencing in the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

When comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as shown in the deliberation by the court below and the party concerned, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be too heavy or unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.