The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and where the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Sentencing elements asserted by the Defendant appear to have been fully considered by the lower court in determining the sentence, and this court did not have submitted new sentencing data, and there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court.

It is not good that the crime of this case is committed by purchasing the sex of a child or juvenile whose perception of sex has not yet been fully established.

On September 20, 2018, the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he/she was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on September 28, 2018 by the Suwon District Court for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, etc., and sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on September 28, 2018.

Furthermore, the defendant has been punished for committing the same kind of sexual traffic, and 6 times among them, 4 times among them was the crime of sexual traffic against children and juveniles.

Comprehensively taking into account such circumstances and various sentencing conditions as seen in the records and arguments of the instant case, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, including the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime, and his mistake is divided, shall be considered.

Even if the court below's sentencing is too unreasonable, it cannot be deemed that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The Defendant’s assertion disputing the unreasonableness of sentencing in the lower court does not accept the Defendant’s age, record of crime, risk of recidivism, details and method of crime, the disadvantage of the Defendant resulting from the employment restriction order, sexual crime that can be achieved therefrom, and effects of preventing sex crimes, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.