The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of suspended sentence in July) on the summary of the reasons for appeal 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant was the first offender, and the Defendant was in a concurrent offense relationship with the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (e.g., the judgment) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, even though it is recognized that the Defendant was in a concurrent offense relationship with the crime of violation of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc., in which the judgment became final and conclusive, and that the Defendant was arrested to sell phiphones, and that the amount of phiphonephones possessed by the Defendant at

In addition, the circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal are deemed to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc. as shown in such circumstances, the lower court’s sentence 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.