2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, although the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigation agency to commit the crime of this case, the crime related to narcotics is not easy to detect due to their characteristics, and the risk of recidivism is high, and it is necessary to severely punish the society as a whole due to decliability, toxicity, etc., and the defendant re-offenders the crime of this case during the repeated crime period due to the fact that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, even though he was punished for the previous crime, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, the frequency of medication in this case (three times) and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court (one hundred to two years imprisonment), and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be said that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.