The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, confiscation, and collection of penalties) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered a sentence on the grounds of sentencing, as stated in its holding, by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant into account, and did not find any circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial.

A defendant asserts to the effect that the punishment should be mitigated because he actively cooperated in the investigation of other narcotics-related crimes. However, the defendant's cooperation refers to the case where the relevant person has contributed to the investigation to the extent that it is possible to prosecute a criminal prosecution or add a criminal prosecution by clarifying specific and accurate facts with respect to the important investigation cooperation defendant, which is one or more of the following factors:

- compared to the types of drug crimes applicable to the accused, 1. more severe.