The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (e.g., in light of the Constitutional Court’s decision on the process leading the Defendant to commit the instant crime and the relevant penal provisions, and the location of massages who are not visually impaired persons, and the difference between the place of massages and the place of massages for recovery of fright, etc., the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Although the demand for services, such as helping to assist in the single blood cycle in the market or releasing the flaged meat assembled, the supply of the visually impaired who acquired the qualification as a massage club was rapidly increased, it is difficult to see that the value of punishment for the defendant is significant in light of the process in which the act of massage by the visually impaired was widely spread, and the defendant has no criminal history of the same kind of crime. However, the above circumstance seems to have been sufficiently considered in the sentencing of the court below that sentenced a fine of KRW 2 million, which is the amount claimed for a summary order, was already considered in the sentencing of the court below, and the above circumstance seems to have been sufficiently considered in the sentencing of the court below that sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million, which is the amount claimed for a summary order, allowing only the visually disabled to obtain the qualification as a massage and preventing the establishment of a massage clinic, without the qualification as a massage, and in light of the legislative purpose of the Medical Service Act, the crime of this case in light of

In light of the Defendant’s age, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is deemed appropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. In so doing, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed appropriate in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and environment; (b) the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the crime.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, the Criminal Procedure Act.