2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

The court below, as stated in the reasons for the sentencing, has determined the punishment in consideration of the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the defendant.

Although the inquiry inquiry reply to the purport that “the defendant cooperations with the arrest of a drug offender” was reached in the trial court, the above cooperation seems to have been sufficiently taken into account in the course of the investigation of this case and the decision of the court below. As such, it is difficult to view the cooperation as changes in circumstances to consider in determining the punishment of the crime of this case, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions of the court below because new sentencing data have not been submitted in the trial court, and in light of the defendant’s age, character, character, environment, family relations, the circumstances and result of the crime, etc., all the sentencing conditions in the oral arguments, such as the defendant’s age, character and behavior, family relation, and circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

[However, among the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, “the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Daejeon District Court on March 23, 2016,” and “the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months at the Suwon District Court on January 11, 2018, and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the Suwon District Court on September 11