2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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). The Defendant appears to have endeavored to stop narcotics, such as taking a medication and receiving treatment at a hospital.

However, in light of all kinds of sentencing conditions stated in the pleadings of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable because the defendant's conviction had the record of being punished for the same crime, and even during the trial, it appears that the degree of dependence on narcotics would not be less severe because the defendant committed the crime for the same crime, and there is no special circumstance to change the sentencing after the judgment of the court below, and there is no other reason to find any change in circumstances that can change the sentencing after the judgment of the court below.

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.