The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first crime: imprisonment with prison labor for four months and additional collection, and the second to five crimes as indicated in the decision: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, additional collection and confiscation) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

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 en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In addition, the fact that the defendant handled philopon and the number of times of handling philopon are not significant, and the fact that the defendant committed each crime without being aware of it during the suspension of execution in relation to the crime of 2 through 5 of the ruling.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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