The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant had an employee informed the customer of the general acceptance of sexual traffic, he did not arrange sexual traffic.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case indicated as follows: (a) around 21:00 on September 11, 2017, the Defendant entered the facts charged of the instant building and the judgment of the court below as “C”; (b) however, this is obvious that he/she had a wrong position in K, and thus, it is corrected ex officio.

2 The 'D' 'D' 'D' 20,000 won for sexual traffic from customers E and notified them to guest rooms, and then, the employee F was allowed to enter the 'P' with a cryp diesel, etc., thereby arranging sexual traffic.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

(c)

The following circumstances revealed by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, ① interviewed at the instant establishment around September 2017, ② the interviewed by the defendant and the defendant, ② the police officer, who was pretended to engage in commercial sex acts, visited the instant establishment, ② the defendant at the time when the police officer E visited the instant establishment, the defendant informed the E by dividing the issue of commercial sex acts and the conversation related to the price, and then sent the F to the above room. ③ At the time, the F got into a room after hearing the statement from the defendant to the effect that he would engage in commercial sex acts, ④ the defendant, his husband, and the defendant were both the defendant and the defendant's Ha Dong-dong.