2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant appears to have a good health condition and have difficulty in economic situation; and (b) the Defendant was favorable to the Defendant, other than once a fine due to a violation of the Public Sanitation Act; (c) the Defendant has no special criminal record; (d) however, the Defendant’s act of arranging sexual traffic in this case is highly detrimental to the society, such as undermining the sound sex culture and good morals; (e) the Defendant’s participation in the act of arranging sexual traffic in this case as the owner of the instant sexual traffic business; (c) the period of operation of the said business is significant; (d) there is no special change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered in the records and arguments of this case, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is not justified.

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