2. The following facts are favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of and reflect against the instant crime; (b) while the act of arranging sexual traffic does not have a significant social hazard, such as harming the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing the female sex; and (c) even in order to prevent the spread of illegal sexual traffic establishments and to establish a sound sexual culture, it is necessary to cut off and severe punishment against the proprietor of the business who operates illegal sexual traffic establishments; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime by replacing his employees in the same place, even though he was discovered by the act of arranging sexual traffic around March 2014; (e) there was a history of criminal punishment for the same type of crime; and (e) other various sentencing factors as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, family environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s excessive punishment against the Defendant is unreasonable.

3. If so, 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.