2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the Defendant has recognized the instant crime, the instant case is that the Defendant has received, sold, or administered phiphonephones, and there is a big need to strictly punish the instant crime in light of the social malicious circumstances. In particular, the crimes related to the distribution of narcotics, such as the receipt, receipt, sale, etc., cause the spread of narcotic addicts, and thus, there are more heavy penalties, including the Defendant’s criminal punishment, and the Defendant has a number of records of criminal punishment. This case is a crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same drug crime, and there are no other new circumstances to consider the sentencing after the sentence of the lower court, and the Defendant’s age, health, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all unfair records and circumstances of the crime after pleadings.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (as to the costs of lawsuit, the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply).