2. Although there are some favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the instant crime, the motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and the fact that the Defendant appears to be operating in the form of a structure and form without any particular profits, the instant crime was committed with 12 guest rooms in an area of about 630 square meters without reporting to the competent administrative agency. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant without reporting to the competent administrative agency, and its size is small, its operation period is considerably small, its operation period is considerably limited to about 9 months, and the Defendant continued to run his business without stopping until August 2013, even though it was controlled one time by the non-reported accommodation business operation around January 2013, the Defendant was under an unfavorable circumstance, such as the fact that the Defendant continued to run his business without stopping until August 2013. Considering various conditions of sentencing indicated in the record, such as the content, method, consequence and consequence of the instant crime and the circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.