A. misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant provided strict education and supervision to prevent employees from mediating sexual traffic at ordinary times. At the time of the instant case, employees E, the owner of the instant business, only arrange sexual traffic, and the Defendant did not either “public offering” or instruct E to arrange sexual traffic.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the erroneous determination of facts, the lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant resided in Daejeon and managed 1-2 times per week, ② the employees in ordinary times managed the telecom, ② the “ accommodation cost” of the telecom was KRW 50,00 won or KRW 20,000 per three hours, ③ E, which began to work as an employee from March 2013, was stored in a credit cooperative on that day, and had no authority to independently operate the telecom, such as receiving accommodation cost or substitute fee or receiving it differently from the provision, ④ the Defendant’s right to independently operate and manage the telecom, and ④ the Defendant’s act of engaging in commercial sex acts in the middle-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s neighboring commercial sex acts, and the Defendant’s act of gathering 70,000 won after receiving a report from the mid-gu, Seoul, and received a report from the 1st century, and the Defendant’s act of gathering 7,000,00 won.”