2. We examine the judgment in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was aware of his mistake while committing the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant provided information during the investigation process to the police and provided cooperation in arresting him.

However, there was a reply to the fact that the Defendant had been punished twice for the same crime, and the lower court has determined the punishment in consideration of the already favorable circumstances to the Defendant, and that there was no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the lower judgment. (In the first instance court, “the Defendant has been cooperatingd with the investigation related to the arrest of a narcotic offender in the drug investigation team of the Regional Police Agency in 2013 and 2014.” However, the above cooperation in the investigation appears to have been conducted in the process of investigation and trial for the same crime before the instant case. As such, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was committed in the process of being investigated and tried for the same crime before the instant case, taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to have been excessively unfair since the Defendant’s punishment was too inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's 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.