2. The lower court, on the grounds that the Defendant recognized the crime of this case and its liability, and that there was no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case, determined a sentence by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant, while operating a pet dog sales and entrusted management business without registration, provided all kinds of drugs without expertise; (b) in light of the purpose of the pertinent law for the adequate protection and management of animals and the protection of animal safety and life; and (c) the Defendant’s liability for the crime of the act of the Defendant is not less strict; and (d) the circumstances that the Defendant neglected the adequate protection and management of animals, such as the discovery of a number of mags managed by the Defendant, such as the name, character and conduct of the Defendant, the details and circumstances of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant appear to be the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account when determining the Defendant’s punishment. The lower court’s punishment is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there are no circumstances suggesting that the said sentencing conditions have been changed in the appellate court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted, since the court below's punishment is too heavy.

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.