2. The fact that the defendant is against his fault is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant engaged in the business of dental treatment and without a license. Such medical treatment contains the risk of causing serious damage to the life and health of people. In particular, given that there is a high risk of causing side effects, such as blood transfusion, infection, second infection, etc., there is a considerable social risk. In full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, circumstance and details leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (see, e.g., Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since the summary of evidence in the judgment of the court below is obvious that “E” is a clerical error of “D.”