The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

The defendant recognizes all crimes and reflects on his/her own dignity, and the health of the defendant is not good.

However, the inhalement of hallucinogenic substances can be related to various crimes and flights, and it is inevitable to severely punish personal and social harm as it is highly addicted to their addiction.

The defendant has a large number of criminal records including imprisonment with prison labor, and has repeatedly committed the crime in a short time.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relation, etc. and various conditions of sentencing indicated in the arguments and records, it cannot be deemed that the court below's punishment is too heavy beyond the reasonable limit of discretion.

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