The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant’s establishment of a sexual traffic business place (hereinafter “the instant sexual traffic business place”) stated in the facts charged.

There is no fact that he was operated, and only worked as an employee.

B. The punishment of the lower court is heavy.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence examined by the lower court as a whole, the following facts and circumstances are recognized.

The fact that the defendant is the owner of the sexual traffic business in this case, which he operates, may be recognized based on this.

1) A female employees D, E, and a person called “H”, who worked at the instant sexual traffic business establishment, operated the instant sexual traffic business establishment.

The investigator showed F, I, and three photographs of Defendant 3, and the Defendant was identified as H, the main business of the instant sexual traffic business establishment.

2) From August 1, 2012 to December 5, 2012, prior to the instant crime, J has been punished as having been operated with the trade name “K” in the same place as the instant sexual traffic business establishment (Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu Officetel 1405, 615, 705, and 403).

In this regard, J transferred the instant sexual traffic business establishment to the “F” person after the police was controlled by the investigative agency. After receiving the F, I, and three photographs from the investigator, the Defendant was identified and identified and transferred the instant sexual traffic business establishment to the Defendant.

was made.

3) Unlike with the investigation agency, the Defendant asserts in the lower court’s court and in this court that he was not an employer of the instant sexual traffic business establishment, but an employee whom he was employed.

However, the defendant does not submit any material about whom the actual owner of the business is aware.

B. Examining the circumstances revealed in the grounds of sentencing and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the record by the lower court, the sentencing is not deemed unfair.

3. Conclusions of appeal by the defendant