All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The defendants' misjudgments and reflects the defendants' misjudgments, and there is no criminal conviction for the defendants, and in particular, the defendant B is the first offender under favorable circumstances.

On the other hand, in light of the purport of the Medical Service Act, which permits the Defendants to operate a place of massage practice for more than 2 years, and to establish a place of massage practice only for those who have obtained the recognition of certain qualifications, the Defendants’ liability is less than those of the Defendants.

It is an unfavorable circumstance that can not be seen.

In full view of the factors and sentences of the sentencing in this Court, the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, when determining the sentencing.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, even if the circumstances and results of the instant crime were to be considered after the commission of the crime, the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, etc., the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be adequate and too unreasonable.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all appeals are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.