2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). In light of the size of the instant singing practice hall or the number of alcoholic beverages provided, it is recognized that the illegality of the instant crime is not emphasized, and that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine.

However, even though the Defendant had been sentenced to four times of a fine due to a violation of the Music Industry Promotion Act, the Defendant committed the instant crime, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, occupation, motive, economic condition, etc. as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. Accordingly, 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.