2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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, etc.). The Defendant cooperationd with the investigation of a drug offender, and the Defendant’s mother’s health is recognized as a circumstance in which the health of the Defendant’s mother is not good due to paralysis caused by cerebral transfusion, etc.

However, in full consideration of the aforementioned various circumstances in the court below, even though the defendant had been sentenced three times to a marijuana-related crime (one-time imprisonment, one-time suspension of execution, and two-time suspension of execution), he selected the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively taking into account such circumstances, the Defendant’s age, occupation, living environment, motive of crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines as shown in the hearing of the lower court and the party deliberation, the sentence imposed by the lower court is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act; however, according to the investigation records of the lower court’s criminal facts, “as of September 2, 2017, around 22:30” “as of September 2, 2017, around 19:00, the Defendant administered phiphones within a vehicle parked, and smoked during the hours of smoking marijuana,” the prosecutor stated in the indictment and stated in the judgment of the lower court as “as of September 2, 2017, around 22:30” appears to be a clerical error.

The defendant's administration of philophones and smoking time of marijuana as above is within the scope that the identity of the facts charged is recognized, and it does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, and thus ex officio without any changes in indictment procedure.