2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: although the defendant's primary crime is recognized, although the crime of this case is committed in this case, the crime of this case was committed by leasing two rooms of officetels to arrange commercial sex acts, and the crime of this case is not less than the nature of the crime; the defendant's commencement of business on October 26, 2014, which is the date of the control, even though the defendant leased an officetel from September 24, 2014, and the defendant did not seem to seriously reflect the defendant's intention; the defendant's act of arranging commercial sex acts for about one month on an officetel; the period of crime is not less than the short; the defendant's profits acquired by the crime of this case are not significant; the defendant's age, career, family relations, and all other matters on the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case are considered to be appropriate. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.