The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Sentencing sentencing on the gist of reasons for appeal

2. The lower court, under the circumstances that the Defendant had three previous convictions in the same kind, and committed the same crime again within two months after the completion of the execution of punishment for the same kind of crime, shall take into account the favorable circumstances that the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime, and that the Defendant would have expressed treatment intent, and determined the maximum sentence within the scope of the recommended punishment based on the sentencing guidelines.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

It is recognized that the defendant thought that he will close his life in the aftermath of the automobile parts company in which he operated, and that he will resume the narcotics based on the deep circumstances about his family (the defendant asserts that even in the first instance, the circumstances that the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the defendant are considered in sentencing.

The Defendant, after administering narcotics, is detained by his wife and children on the narcotics.

Report was made to the police.

Accordingly, it was not found that police officers called out and searched the whole cartels reported by the Defendant, but the wife and children were detained, and rather, the above report became known to the investigation agency about the medication of the Defendant.

Since the above reporting act by the Defendant does not constitute a self-denunciation under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act as stated in the judgment below, the Defendant’s above assertion by the Defendant is not accepted. However, considering this, even if considering the fact, the sentencing conditions set forth earlier in the trial were significantly changed.

It is difficult to see the above sentencing, and considering the fact that the above sentencing amount and the sentence of the original sentence correspond to the lowest limit of the recommended sentencing criteria, it cannot be deemed that the original sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.