2. Where 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the toxicity of narcotics and the harmful effects of medication, there is a need to eradicate narcotics crimes by strictly punishing them.

The defendant has the same record as 10 times and is a repeated crime of the same kind.

In addition, in the light of the result of the maternity test from which philophones are detected in the defendant's hair, it seems that the defendant's philophones are highly dependent on philophones, so it is inevitable to punish the defendant.

The court below determined a punishment in consideration of all the circumstances, and there is no special relationship or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not hot, as it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

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