The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for one year and three months, confiscation, and collection) of the lower court’s sentencing (e.g., confiscation and collection) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing. The circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial, such as the confession and opposition of the Defendant, and contributing to the detection of a large number of narcotics by actively cooperating with the investigation, etc., are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the punishment, and the Defendant has repeatedly committed the same crime even though he was sentenced for a violation of the Act on the Control, etc. of Narcotics, etc., and the execution of the sentence is completed, and it is difficult to view that the number of the crimes is considerably large, the nature of each crime is not good, and that the transfer of phiphonephones that have been purchased or received free of charge, etc., the lower court’s determination of the sentence is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and it does not seem to have been beyond the scope of discretion.