2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where 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 Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Narcotics crimes are highly harmful to their addiction and society, the defendant’s history of punishment for the same kind of crime has reached three times (two times of imprisonment and one time of suspension of the execution of imprisonment). In particular, considering the fact that the crime of this case constitutes the same kind of repeated crime, it is inevitable to punish the defendant significantly, and there is no new change in circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

When comprehensively considering these circumstances, Defendant’s age, living conditions, health conditions (such as functional disorder, etc.), and the sentencing guidelines and the scope of the recommended punishment according to sentencing guidelines (aggravating area, one year to three years), the sentence imposed by the lower court is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. Accordingly, 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.