2. Determination is a favorable condition, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and against the wrong determination, that there was no record of punishment for narcotics-related crimes, and that the Defendant has grown into a difficult environment as an infant.

However, in light of the content and frequency of the instant crime, the fact that the crime is not good in light of the applicable law, social harm caused by narcotics, and the necessity of eradicating them, it requires a strict punishment for narcotics crimes, which did not agree with the victims of the instant crime, which did not recover from damage, and there was a history of criminal punishment on several occasions due to the same type of crime and the instant crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the repeated crime period due to the same type of crime.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, there is no special change in circumstances that make the sentence different from the original judgment, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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 on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.