2. The Defendant, who is the actual proprietor of the place of the massage procedure of this case, made confessions and reflects the crime of this case, favorable circumstances such as the closure of the place of the massage procedure of this case as of November 25, 2014, the act of arranging sexual traffic does not have considerable social harm, such as harm to the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing women’s sex, and requires a simple and serious punishment to prevent the spread of illegal sexual traffic business establishments, and to establish a sound sexual culture. While the Defendant, who is the actual proprietor of the place of the massage procedure of this case, is the first offender, the place of the massage procedure of this case was regulated by the police prior to the crime of this case, and was under control on March 14, 2014 and May 10, 2014, and the F and the Defendant G on behalf of the Defendant, who is the nominal owner of the business registration, are not subject to criminal punishment for the act of arranging sexual traffic in this case, the lower court’s sentencing records and circumstances before and after the crime of this case are too unfavorable.

3. If so, the defendant and the prosecutor's appeal are without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, in the last sentence of the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the "in the business of a male guest" was omitted by mistake, and thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.]