A. The Defendant, as stated in the lower judgment, did not engage in an act of arranging sexual traffic to E, and there is no fact that he/she took the face of E.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the first instance judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous.

In light of special circumstances or the results of the first instance court's examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted not later than the closing of oral argument, maintaining the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court cannot without permission to reverse the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the witness's statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.), and there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility of each of the court's statements made by the witness E, G, and F, and considering each of the above statements made by the court below, the defendant received 30,000 won from E and mediated sexual traffic for business purposes, and sufficiently recognized facts that assault E are not sufficient. Thus, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not oppose the instant charges by denying the instant charges until the Defendant was in the trial; (b) the Defendant had two times criminal records of fines due to the brokerage of sexual traffic; and (c) the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, and other circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s wrongful assertion on the

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