The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the misunderstanding of facts, Q, not the Defendant, who was unemployed of D’s “E” (hereinafter “instant establishment”).

Since the Defendant only worked as an employee at the instant business establishment, it is nothing more than an aiding and abetting a crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Acts such as Arranging Sexual Traffic, and the judgment below that recognized the Defendant as a principal offender for the crime of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, since the Defendant was merely an employee of the instant business establishment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment below.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (the penalty of 4 months, confiscation, 1,816,670 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is deemed as an unemployed worker of the instant business establishment. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

① On August 14, 2014, the Defendant: (a) acknowledged that he/she was unemployed of the instant establishment, and specifically stated the number of employees, wages of employees, business-use fees, operating method, business hours, sales amount, etc. in the “Sim,” prepared immediately after the police’s control over the intermediation of sexual traffic.

② In the police investigation, the Defendant stated in detail the details of store lease, artificial expenses, employment circumstances, etc. in addition to the above statement, and acknowledged that he was unemployed of the instant establishment until the third trial date in the lower court.

③ In the police investigation, K, one of the employees of the instant establishment, stated that the Defendant was the owner of the instant establishment, and J and F, other employees, had found the Defendant at the immigration control office after control and paid monthly pay.

was stated.

④ A lease agreement on the instant establishment was concluded in the name of the Defendant.