2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Pursuant to the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant crime is deemed to have been administered over two occasions after purchasing phiphonephones and smoked into marijuana, and the nature of the relevant crime is not good. In particular, the Defendant, even though having been subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime, repeats the same crime without being aware of the fact that he/she was subject to the suspended sentence of imprisonment, and thus, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant.

The lower court determined a punishment by taking account of the Defendant’s health condition or intent to terminate the term of punishment, etc., alleged as the grounds for appeal, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s given that no new data on sentencing have been submitted in the trial. In full view of all of the reasons for sentencing specified in the records and arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentence is too unlimited and it is not recognized that it exceeded the reasonable scope

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.