The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant is both aware of, against, and against, all of the instant crimes, and against, the intention of a summary.

There are circumstances that could be considered favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that only the two times of simple medication was not involved in the distribution of phiphones, and active cooperation in the investigation of drug offenders.

However, considering all the above circumstances, the lower court appears to have sentenced the lowest sentence within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, and there is no change in the special sentencing conditions in the first instance.

Defendant had been punished as a multiple drug crime, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a drug crime, and the execution of the sentence has not been terminated, and again committed the instant crime.

It is judged that the degree of addiction is not less severe and the risk of recidivism is also high.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

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