2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

Considering the fact that the accused has a criminal record for the same kind of crime, the addiction of narcotics and the social harm and danger resulting therefrom, the lower court, under the unfavorable circumstances that the accused needs to be isolated from society for a considerable period of time, determined a sentence against the accused beyond the lower limit of the recommended sentence (one year) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, taking into account the following favorable circumstances: (a) the accused has led to the confession and reflect of the crime; (b) the Defendant’s growth environment at which the accused was committed;

C. Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of the present case and the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.