The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (a prison term of one year and eight months, confiscation, collection) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, even though the defendant had been already punished several times for the same kind of crime, the crime of this case was committed during the period of the same repeated crime, the mere fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case without being limited to the scopon medication, the crime of narcotics, etc. is highly likely to repeat crimes due to its toxicity, etc., and there is a high risk of harm to individuals and society, and there is a need for strict punishment. In full view of all the sentencing factors as shown in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, the background and motive leading up to the crime of this case, the frequency and frequency of the crime (five times) and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be said that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.