The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (an imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, confiscation, additional collection of 1,016,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant case is a case in which the Defendant, in the Republic of Korea, administered a clopon (hereinafter “copon”) twice in the Republic of Korea, and entered the Republic of Korea with a copon six g of copon in the Thailand after purchasing part of the copon copon copon copon copon crison crison crison crison crison crison crison

The lower court: (1) under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, it is difficult to detect narcotics crimes; (2) there is a high risk of recidivism; (3) negative impact on the society as a whole due to decilability, toxicity, etc.; and (4) there is a high risk of causing the spread of narcotics and additional crimes due to the spread of narcotics; and (2) under favorable circumstances, the Defendant led to confession and re-incilation.