2. Although the Defendant recognized the facts of crime, there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant and his employees received certain education about marina activities or obtained a qualification certificate, and the Defendant submitted a report on closure of business on April 3, 2013 and did not operate marina business, the size of marina business operated by the Defendant is significant, and the Defendant had already operated marina business from October 2008 and had already been subject to criminal punishment of two times or more of fines (one million won of fine, two million won of fine, and two million won of fine) by regulating the same facts of crime in the instant case, despite the fact that the Defendant had been subject to criminal punishment of two times or more of fines (one time of fine, one million won of fine, and two million won of fine). The lower court’s unfavorable circumstances, such as the motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, the background leading up to the crime, the Defendant’s age before and after the crime, the Defendant’s personality and conduct, the Defendant’s occupation, family relation, etc., were considered in the records, and were too unfair.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.

(However, since the prosecutor deleted "public offering" in Part 5 of the facts charged in this case and added "Article 91 of the Medical Service Act" to the applicable provisions of the Act and deleted "Article 30 of the Criminal Act" in the indictment, the court below's decision was made to delete "public offering" and "Article 30 of the Criminal Act" to delete "public offering" in Part 5 of the facts charged in the application of the Act and ex officio correction is made.