2. It is recognized that there are various circumstances that can be considered in the sentencing of the instant case, including the following: (a) the Defendant’s criminal facts are against the Defendant; (b) there is a lot of controversy over the current legal provisions that restrict only the visually impaired persons to engage in a massage profession; (c) the criteria to distinguish the massage act falling under medical practice; and (d) the act of marina for the purpose of recovery from the route, and the fact that the Defendant acquired a beauty artist’s certificate.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant had already been punished for the same kind of crime, the size of the Defendant’s business establishment in this case is not many, the period of operation is not short, the summary order of KRW 1 million against the employees G who had been employed by the Defendant’s business establishment became final and conclusive, and the lower court’s punishment seems to have been imposed by reducing the punishment by taking into account all the circumstances favorable to the Defendant as seen earlier, taking into account all the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances surrounding the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendant’s career, character and conduct, etc., and the various sentencing conditions indicated in the oral argument, it cannot be deemed unfair for the lower

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.