The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) If a police officer of a naval investigation pretends to be a customer and demands sexual traffic and arouses the criminal intent of the defendant, it constitutes a so-called “inceptional investigation by the criminal intent,” and thus, the indictment of this case is unlawful.

(2) As long as a person who requested sexual traffic is the police officer who is most likely to be a customer, the Defendant’s arrangement itself is not possible, this case constitutes an impossible crime of arranging sexual traffic.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) The Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail with the Defendant’s assertion and judgment in the written judgment. In light of the records compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

(2) Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic means that the parties intending to engage in commercial sex acts make good offices or convenience between them. Thus, in order to become good offices for commercial sex acts, the parties intending to engage in commercial sex acts should not necessarily reach the extent of actually engaging in or meeting with each other.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant had the intention of arranging sexual traffic to connect the sexual traffic with the police officer so that it can be done in the sexual traffic. Accordingly, the defendant's crime of arranging sexual traffic was established, and it is not attributable to the actual sexual traffic or the will of the police officer. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant is obliged to be subject to an unreasonable sentencing.