The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Medical Service Act, although the Defendant was an employee employed by a public bath proprietor, only engaged in the management of a marina room on a monthly basis, and did not constitute a violation of Article 88 of the Medical Service Act because he did not directly operate a marina room, but he did not directly engage in a marina room. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the Medical Service Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, the Defendant, in light of the fact that the Defendant was in charge of the overall operation of a massage room, such as employment of massageman, commuting management, customer management, etc., in relation to the marina room installed in a public bath, even though the Defendant received benefits from D and performed the same act, and did not directly know, it constitutes a case where the Defendant, who is not qualified as a massage club, as a constituent element under Article 88 of the Medical Service Act, provided massage for profit-making purposes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

subsection (b) of this section.

The above assertion by the defendant cannot be accepted.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant did not reflect the past record of the judgment of suspended sentence for the same crime, and committed the instant crime again, the size of the business of the marina room managed by the Defendant, and there is no change in circumstances or circumstances newly considered in the sentencing after the judgment of the lower court was rendered, and all kinds of sentencing shown in the records and changes theory, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.