2. In a case where 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.). In light of the fact that a narcotics crime is highly harmful to the addiction and society, and that the defendant has the history of being punished by the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the same kind of crime, it is deemed that a heavier punishment is necessary for the defendant, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the arguments of the court below and the party deliberation, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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.