The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as 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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) In most cases, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the first instance court were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, and there is no significant change in circumstances related to the matters subject to sentencing after the sentence of the lower court was made.

It is favorable to the defendant that there is a confession of a crime, that is a simple medication, and that there is a need to consider the equity between the case and the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time with all the written judgments.

However, the defendant did to commit a drug crime even though he had been under the surveillance period for the interest during the probation period for the same drug crime, and he was detained for about 10 months in relation to the previous records entered in the judgment of the court below during the probation period, and 10 days after being released.