The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground of the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, even if this court did not submit new data on sentencing as it did not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and even if the defendant cooperates with the investigation of other narcotics offenders, it is not recognized that the first instance court’s sentencing is too excessive and goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. 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 (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, however, the defendant's appeal is dismissed ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, and the defendant's appeal is corrected to delete "No. 1g" of approximately 0.7g of "No. 2, 5 in the column of the criminal history of the judgment below," and "No. 2, 1g in the summary of the evidence."