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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the Defendant had the record of having been punished eight times for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime due to the same crime, and narcotics-related crimes are highly likely to repeat a crime and have a great harm to the individual society due to their toxicity, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, the background and motive leading to the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the frequency of the crimes (two times), etc., and the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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