The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to 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 it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). It is recognized that the Defendant is recognized as committing the instant crime and against whom the Defendant is recognized, and that there are circumstances in cooperation with the investigation of a drug offender.

However, narcotics crimes are highly harmful to their addiction and society, and the criminal defendant's records of punishment for the same kind of crime are 17 times (17 times of imprisonment with prison labor) and are the same repeated crime.

In light of the fact that the amount of the penphones purchased and possessed by the defendant at the time of the crime of this case reaches 4.82g, it is inevitable to severely punish the defendant.

If there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may newly consider in the trial of the party, and comprehensively takes into account the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, living environment, and motive of crime, and the range of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines, the sentence imposed by the court below is done 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.