2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects on the fact that there is no criminal history exceeding the fine, etc. However, even though the act of arranging sexual traffic is deemed to be detrimental to the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing women’s sex, and thus, has a great social hazard, the Defendant committed the instant crime at another time even though he was investigated while doing sexual traffic arrangement business on or around February 25, 2016, without any special circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as equity in sentencing with accomplices, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, and the period of punishment, are considered as being too unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.