2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant with a test citing various kinds of narcotics, such as Cocars, phiphonephones, and MDM, and all of them were administered. In light of the period, frequency, and frequency of the crime, etc., the crime was not less than that against the Defendant. The crime related to narcotics, etc. was committed by toxicly, and it was inevitable to punish the Defendant, in view of the fact that it is highly likely that it may cause harm and harm to society as a whole, and thus, it is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes all crimes, and repents his mistake, the amount of narcotics that the defendant accepted and administered is relatively less than the amount of narcotics that the defendant received, and appears to have received for the purpose of medication, and there is no record of punishment or punishment exceeding imprisonment without prison labor for the same crime against the defendant.

In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is not difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.