2. 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 Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Narcotics crimes are highly harmful to the addiction and society, the Defendant’s history of punishment for the same kind of crime has reached 11 times, and the Defendant has been punished for the same repeated crime, and the amount of the penphone carried by the Defendant is not less than 18.29g, and the amount of the penphonephone carried by the Defendant is not less than 18.29g, and there is no new change in circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing, such as the character and conduct of the defendant, the background leading up to the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the health conditions (the right snow name, and the merger of urology), and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (one year to June 1, 200), the punishment imposed by the court below was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. According to the 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.