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 the sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). It is recognized that the Defendant was involved in the administration of phiphonephones once.

However, since drug crimes are highly harmful to their addiction and society, severe punishment is inevitable. On November 24, 2017, the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year of imprisonment for the same crime on the same kind of crime on the one-year basis, and even though he was under the appellate trial, he committed the crime of this case.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, health status, and family relation, as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

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.