2. The defendant, by recognizing the crime of this case, has shown not only cooperation in the investigation but also his attitude to repent of his mistake.

In light of the period, frequency, etc. of the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s liability is heavy.

The defendant does not seem to have any benefit accrued from the crime of this case.

It seems that the economic situation of the defendant is not good.

However, the defendant has been sentenced to a fine on three occasions, and all of which are the same criminal records as the crime of this case.

The Defendant appears to have operated a business without reporting for a long time at the place of the instant crime, and the instant crime is deemed not a single crime due to the site of the relevant statutes.

In order to prevent the criminal defendant from repeating the same crime in the future, it is necessary to deprive him of economic benefits.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added to all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed in the first instance court, and it is not determined that the sentencing of the court below is too unfair because it exceeds the reasonable discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.