The objection is well founded. It is true that, according to case law, where an appeal is limited to the sentencing, the appellate court is required to extend its examination to those points of the first-instance judgment that are closely connected with the contested sentence, and may in particular take account of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Unlike in the judgments 6B_166/2025 of 10 June 2025, consid. 1.3.3, and 6B_291/2017 of 16 January 2018, consid. 1, cited by it, the lower court does not merely supplement the facts with circumstances not mentioned by the court of first instance; rather, with regard to the narcotics offences that have become final, it makes its own assessment of the evidence and proceeds on a completely different set of facts from that of the court of first instance. [...] In view of the finality of the narcotics offences, the lower court is bound by the first-instance court's findings in that respect. It could therefore not proceed on a different, larger quantity than the first-instance court. [...] The appeal is partially upheld and the case is remitted to the lower court for resentencing. For the rest, the appeal is dismissed insofar as it is admissible.