The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection of one hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Of the judgment below’s correction of the written judgment of the court below, “1. Investigation report (related to collection) was omitted in error in the column of evidence,” and “former Narcotics Control Act (amended by Act No. 9024, Mar. 23, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply)” as “former Narcotics Control Act (amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply)” and “Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.” as “the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.” under Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure is obvious that it is a clerical error in each of the “former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.” and “the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.” under Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. Thus, ex officio addition and correction is made.

4. In conclusion, 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.