2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where the defendant acknowledges the crime and reflects the fact that the defendant has committed the crime, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s decision because new data on sentencing have not been submitted at the trial, and the circumstances alleged by the defendant for reasons of sentencing are already reflected in the lower court’s sentencing grounds. Intermediating and arranging commercial sex acts are deemed to have been subject to strict punishment because social harm, such as harm to the sound sexual culture and good customs by commercializing the sex, etc. The Internet web site, which is the high spreading in the promotion of the business of arranging commercial sex acts of this case, was used, and the defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence for a period of six years from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime, which is one year or more, and the defendant again used the same motive for the crime of this case’s sentencing.