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 at the appellate court; and (b) no new data on sentencing

In addition, the defendant did not merely sell and possess philophones, but also sold and possessed philophones, and the defendant did not have a lot of transfer of philophones handled by the defendant, and thus, he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for narcotics crimes.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the background and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded 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 on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.