The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court, where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court considered (i) the Defendant who sold marijuana 1g in unfavorable circumstances; (ii) the fact that narcotics, etc., have a significant harm to the health and social safety of the people; (iii) the encouragement of smoking and expansion of the base thereof through the purchase, sale and brokerage of marijuana; (iv) the Defendant was in need of strong punishment; (v) the Defendant committed the instant crime on October 2013 with imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 2 years and 4 months; and (v) the Defendant committed the instant crime in preference to the circumstances favorable to the Defendant; and (v) the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s sale of the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 1 year or 4 months; and (v) the circumstances and amount of the instant sentencing.

Such sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances related to sentencing, and circumstances alleged by the Defendant in the trial of the lower court have already been fully considered in determining the punishment at the lower court, and no other new sentencing data exists to change the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.