The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable (the imprisonment of one year, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, community service order 80 hours, and 40 hours of lecture for the treatment of narcotics).

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 court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). In light of the fact that narcotics crimes are highly harmful to the addiction and society, in particular, the act of selling phiphonephones is expanding the medication, and thus, there is no change in circumstances that require heavy punishment against the defendant, and there is no new change in circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the arguments of the court below and the party deliberation, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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