The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court in the judgment, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As to the Defendant, there is no significant change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court in the appellate court.

The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime of this case; (b) the Defendant has cooperation in the investigation of narcotics in an investigative agency; (c) the Defendant has been endeavoring not to repeat the crime by receiving medical treatment at a medical institution; and (d) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment.

However, considering the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant, together with the co-defendant A, administered or smoked phiphones, MDMA or marijuana over a short period of time from September 7, 2019 to October 21, 2019, in light of the circumstances, contents, frequency, etc. of each of the crimes of this case, the crime is not good in light of the nature of each of the crimes of this case, and narcotics-related crimes have a significant impact on individuals and society as a whole, and the recent rapid regionalized narcotics-related crimes that have recently been organized to protect our society and its members, it is difficult to deem that the sentence of the court below against the defendant goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion and are unfair.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.