2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

Although the defendant's wife is recognized as a situation in which the defendant's wife lives with cambia, the defendant possessed or administered camphones as well as sold (two times) camphones and delivered (one time) camphones to cause new narcotics addicts. The records of punishment for committing the crimes of the same kind and class are eight times, and the same repeated crimes are included.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal appear to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing, such as the character, conduct, environment, means and consequence of the defendant, the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines as shown in the deliberation and arguments of the court below and the party concerned, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, 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.