2. One-off, although the defendant's mistake is recognized and is against it (the defendant asserts the "self-denunciation" in favorable circumstances, but the records acknowledged, it cannot be accepted in light of the circumstances that the defendant appeared in the investigative agency after the nominal owner C was identified as the defendant as a unemployment owner. Such circumstances are already considered in the court below, the size of the commercial sex acts operated by the defendant, the period of the business, and the profits acquired therefrom are heavy, and the defendant has been sentenced to a fine twice for the same crime. Furthermore, this is found to have been discovered by working as the "management division" in the same place as the commercial sex acts of this case and the illegality of the commercial sex acts of this case was discovered, which led to re-offending. The crime of this case is highly likely to be subject to criticism by taking over the commercial sex acts of this case by taking over the commercial sex acts of this case more than the previous crimes, and the circumstances and details of the crime of this case, the circumstances of the defendant's occupation, character and behavior of the defendant, etc., are considered to be too unfair in light of the records.

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