2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s decision on the following grounds: (a) no new data on sentencing was submitted in the trial; and (b) no new data on sentencing was submitted.

In addition, the defendant has no same criminal record, recognition of the crime of this case and reflects the mistake. However, the crimes related to narcotics, etc. of this case, such as this case, are not easy to detect due to its unique characteristics, and are highly negative impacts on society as well as high risk of recidivism, due to their hallcability and toxicity, etc., and the defendant provided a phiphone to B and C and caused them to administer phiphones, and the defendant had nine different criminal records, taking into account all the sentencing factors revealed during the arguments of this case, such as age, character, character, environment, circumstance and motive leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, it does not seem that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too excessive.

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 it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.