2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant was imposed by taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s violation of his/her criminal act, the size, business period, the circumstances after committing the instant commercial sex acts, the Defendant’s role, age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances.

In full view of the following facts: (a) an act of arranging and aiding and abetting sexual traffic is a crime detrimental to the sound sexual culture and good custom; (b) an act of arranging and aiding and abetting sexual traffic is deemed to have been strictly punished; (c) the reason for sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial of the original instance appears to have already been considered in the sentencing at the original instance court; (d) there is no special circumstance to change the sentence; and (e) the lower court, in particular, has sentenced the punishment for reducing the amount of fine under the initial summary order in consideration of the reason for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case; (b) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court; and (c) where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, July 23, 2015).

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.