The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, probation, community service order, and additional collection) of the lower court is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime with no criminal history, and is in profoundly against one’s wrongness while committing the instant crime.

2. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has the unique area of the first instance court as to sentencing determination in the current Criminal Procedure Act, so it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing determination in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by sufficiently taking into account the above favorable circumstances alleged in the first instance court. In light of the size and profit, etc. of the business place of sexual traffic in this case, the lower court’s sentencing determination is not deemed to be excessively excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following factors: (a) there is no special change in circumstances where the lower court should change its punishment after the sentence was rendered; and (b) there is no other special change in circumstances that the lower court’s punishment should be changed.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.