2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant as the reasons for appeal, such as the reflection of the nature of the appeal, are considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

Considering comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, including the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times for a crime related to the intake of hallucinogenic substances of the same kind, and thus, repeated repeated crimes during the period of repeated crimes, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, even if considering the circumstances cited as the grounds for appeal by the Defendant.

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.