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). The following are unfavorable: (a) recognition of and against the instant crime; (b) there is no history of criminal punishment exceeding a fine; (c) period of business is short; and (d) business size is smaller; (b) commercial sex acts distort sex culture by commercializing sex; and (c) there is a significant social harm; and (d) the Defendant was under the influence of having been sentenced to a summary order at the Busan District Court on November 27, 2017, despite the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to the summary order at the Busan District Court on the same occasion, and thus, there is a high possibility of criticism against the instant crime.

In light of the above circumstances, as there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment because the new sentencing data was not submitted in the above circumstances, and the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as all other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem to be excessively heavy beyond the reasonable scope of discretion

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.