2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal are also deemed to have been already reflected in the sentencing process

There is no special change in circumstances that may change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

In full view of the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, criminal records and the contents thereof (the fact that the criminal records of the same kind are majority, and the repeated crime is committed during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime), the attitude in the investigation agency and court, the nature of the crime (the fact that the nature of the crime is very bad, such as medication of philophones to others), the motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the court below and the party hearing, it cannot be said that the defendant's punishment against the defendant is too unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.