The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 20 million, and KRW 100,000,000 for a period converted into one day, the detention in a workhouse for a period of 40 hours, the order to complete a program to prevent recidivism by sexual buyers, and the provisional payment order) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the first instance court

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following: (a) the lower court rendered the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning for sentencing; (b) the Defendant led to the confession of a crime; and (c) the first offender who has no criminal power to commit a crime; and (d) the circumstances favorable to sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial at the trial of the lower court are fully considered when the sentence was determined at the lower court; (b) the nature of the crime, such as purchasing E’s sex, which is a juvenile of the growth period in which the Defendant has formed sexual values; (c) the sentence was sentenced to a fine at the lower court; and (d) the amount thereof is the minimum statutory penalty, the lower court’s judgment is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (d) there is no change in circumstances