The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and expressed an attitude against the Defendant is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the defendant has committed a crime of medication and purchase of philophones, and the amount of philophone purchased by the defendant is not many.

The Defendant had been under suspension of execution or sentence several times of criminal punishment for the same crime even prior to each of the crimes in this case.

In particular, each of the crimes of this case is issued during the period of repeated crimes of the same kind, and it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it was too excessive.

The Defendant cooperates with the investigative agency as much as possible in investigating each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s cooperation led to the arrest of another narcotics offender, and thus, such part should be considered in sentencing. However, considering all of the above circumstances, the lower court’s punishment does not seem to be unfair in light of the circumstances and criminal records of each of the instant crimes and the criminal records of the Defendant.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that there is no ground for appeal.