2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant confessions and reflects the instant crime. The instant crime is in a concurrent relationship between a drug crime and a group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and there is a need to determine the sentence in consideration of equity with the case where the said crime is judged concurrently with the said crime. As such, narcotics crimes are committed under favorable circumstances, such as: (a) undermining the physical and mental condition of an individual due to their decracy, toxicity, etc.; and (b) undermining the health and social safety of the people, there is a high risk that the punishment should be strict punishment; (c) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the lower court’s reasonable discretion is not reasonable in light of the circumstances of the records.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.