J lending money with a fixed time limit for payment, which does not constitute an act of providing money with knowledge of the provision of sexual traffic, and ② as to the intimidation part of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant had expressed his desire while making a telephone conversation with J, and such act does not constitute intimidation as provided for in the crime of intimidation, but the lower court convicted the Defendant of each of the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The crime of violating the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging sexual traffic (the brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic) is established in cases where, with the knowledge of the fact that it is used for the crime, a business owner engaged in the brokerage of sexual traffic provides funds as an employee in advance for employment (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8095, Sept. 22, 2006). The above legal principles and the court below's reasoning recognized as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence: (i) the defendant, despite being aware of the fact that a business owner of a sexual traffic has made a sexual traffic, lent a payment in advance to theJ, who is an employee, upon the request of A; and (ii) A was required to pay a payment in advance in order to employ a sexual traffic as an employee who is engaged in sexual traffic at his/her business establishment; and (iii) the defendant was aware of the above circumstances.