2. Determination is recognized that the Defendant reported the closure of business on or around January 3, 2017, and only reported the pulmonary pulmonary urine operation, and that the Defendant suffered from urology, etc.

However, the defendant, with her husband, has been running sexual traffic business, such as acts of similarity for a long time while operating a closed-end 20 years with her husband.

As a result, the Defendant had been punished, and the Defendant committed the instant crime of the same kind in the same place without being aware of the punishment despite being sentenced to a fine in 2015 and a suspended sentence in 2016 by committing a crime of the same kind of school health law by engaging in sexual traffic at the place of the instant crime.

Defendant not only engaged in the sexual traffic business during the previous trial but also engaged in the sexual traffic business on November 16, 2016, but also engaged in investigation on the instant crime on November 16, 2016, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant at the place where the instant crime was committed.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “Ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,” “Article 6(1)9 of the Act,” and “Article 2 subparag. 5(a) of the Juvenile Protection Act and Article 364(4) of the same Act on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is not reasonable.”