2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

The Defendant was sentenced to punishment for a drug-related crime 14 times, and each of the crimes of this case constitutes a repeated crime, since all of the crimes of this case were released from prison for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal appear to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, 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 age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, as shown in the deliberation and arguments of the court below and the party concerned, 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.