2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself and there is no record of having been punished for the same kind of crime; (b) the Defendant’s commission of commercial sex acts is deemed to have violated the sound sexual culture and good morals, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion due to the lower court’s punishment in light of the following circumstances: (a) even though the commission of commercial sex acts is highly illegal and thus, it is difficult to be socially accepted; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime for a short period of time; (d) there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances leading up to the commission of commercial sex acts, period of commercial sex acts, profit amount, and circumstances after the commission of commercial sex acts; and (e) even if the Defendant’s commission of commercial sex acts is deemed to have committed a considerable amount of money for a short period of time.

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.