2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the Defendant committed a number of narcotics-related crimes, such as trading, giving and receiving, providing, etc. as well as phiphone medication, while the Defendant has committed a large number of narcotics-related crimes, considering that there is a great need to strictly punish, and in particular, the crimes related to the distribution of narcotics, such as trading, etc., cause the spread of narcotics addicts, which are more severe, the Defendant may have the record of criminal punishment including narcotics crimes. The instant crime begins with the date on which the Defendant was released from imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of narcotics for a more than two months and continues to be punished for a period from the date on which the lower court was sentenced, new circumstances to consider the sentencing following the sentence, the Defendant’s health records and motive and circumstances, and circumstances after the criminal act.

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).