2. There is no change in the terms and 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit, and is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure, “for violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.,” written in the first page column of the judgment of the court below clearly stating that it is a clerical error, shall be corrected to “for violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.