2. The lower court determined a sentence by taking into account the favorable circumstances that led to the confession and reflect of a crime, under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant during the period of suspension of execution due to the same crime.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

Although it is recognized that the defendant is old and healthy, and there are many records of narcotics crimes, etc., the sentencing conditions prior to the trial have been significantly changed even considering all favorable circumstances for the defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

Considering that the above sentencing of the court below and the sentencing of the defendant correspond to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of recommended punishment: medication and simple possession, etc. (one year to three years), the aggravated area (one year to three years), and the special aggravated person: the same criminal records and (not more than three years of suspended execution)], it cannot be deemed that the above sentencing of the court below is unfair because it 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.