2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, even when considering the health class of the instant case and the circumstances asserted by the Defendant, the instant crime committed by the Defendant, without registering the opening of occupation at a pay workplace, provided that the Defendant provided a fee to entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment workers without registering the opening of occupation at a entertainment bar, and thus, the nature of the relevant crime is not good; there is no new special circumstance or change of circumstances that may reflect the sentencing after the sentence of the lower court is found; and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and consequence of the instant crime; and the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.