A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged even though the Defendant did not operate the instant sexual traffic business establishment. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misconception of facts.

B. The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s operation of the instant sexual traffic business establishment can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

① During the period of the instant charges (from December to April 2016), the Defendant directly paid KRW 700,000 to J, a lessor of the instant sexual traffic business establishment.

② The Defendant transferred his mobile phone or wire phone, which the Defendant opened in his own name and used at the instant sexual traffic business establishment, to E.

Even after the arguments were asserted, the charges were paid by the defendant.

③ During the period from November 13, 2015 to May 29, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 24,477,00 from E, and the Defendant appears to have received from E the proceeds from the operation of the instant sexual traffic business establishment (it appears that the Defendant received deposits and premiums from E to the account in the name of the Defendant, but considering the details transferred from E to E to the account in the name of the Defendant, it appears that E did not separately adjust the details of payment to the Defendant even if the amount is not specified, including KRW 1,88,00,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and paid to the Defendant.