2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and 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 fact that the Defendant was found to have committed his/her crime late later, and that the sales of phiphonephones were made once more and more and more sold are favorable circumstances.

However, the defendant has already been subject to criminal punishment three times due to the same crime, and the risk of repeating the crime of this case is very high during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.

In light of the addiction of narcotics and the harm caused by the distribution and medication of narcotics, etc., it is necessary to strictly punish and eradicate narcotics-related offenders.

The court below determined the punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be particularly considered in the trial.

Although the Defendant made a confession of a crime in the course of trial, in light of the purport of the Defendant’s legal action, the content and time of confession, etc., such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as a change in special circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and equity in sentencing, etc., the sentencing of the court below is judged to be appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. 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 groundless.