The circumstances where the defendant was able to gain profit by committing the instant crime are recognized, and there is no dependent family member.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had had had been already punished twice by acting as an intermediary for entertainment while running singing, which seems to be strictly punished due to the fact that the profit gained by the commission of the instant crime is much more than the disadvantage resulting from the criminal punishment. Considering the fact that the Defendant’s operation of singing singing only leads to the fact that the Defendant’s commission of singing room does not constitute a funeral, it would be highly likely to repeat the same crime even in the future. In addition, considering various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument, such as the method of the instant crime, background, circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s age and character and conduct, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.