The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor, confiscation and collection) of the lower court against the Defendant 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and even considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, this is more so taking into account the fact that the defendant had already been punished for the same kind of crime, and the fact that the defendant spreads marijuana, such as cultivating marijuana and delivering marijuana to other persons, to the surrounding persons, and the nature of the crime is not good.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the part of "the point of performing marijuana smoking in Article 61(1)4(a) and Article 3 subparag. 10(a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc." among the "Application of Acts and subordinate statutes" in the judgment of the court below shall be as follows: Article 61(1)4(a) and Article 3 subparag. 10(a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Article 3-1) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.; Article 61(1)4(a) and Article 3 subparag. 10(a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (Article 3-2 through (4) of the original judgment) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.