2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant was the first offender, and the period for which the instant door establishment was operated is approximately eight months.

However, the Defendant, while running a literacy procedure, engaged in a business without a license, and such medical practice has the risk of causing serious damage to the life and health of people. In particular, given that there is a high risk of social risk as to side effects, such as blood transfusion, infection, second infection, etc., even after the control of the Defendant, the Defendant continues to engage in a business for two months, etc., and thus is not good in the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and there is no special relation or change of circumstances to be newly considered in the trial, the sentence imposed by the lower court is considered to be conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. Accordingly, 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.