The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In fact, the Defendant did not receive and operate the instant sexual traffic business establishment, and only was an employee.

Although an investigative agency and the court below made a false confession as the owner of the instant sexual traffic business establishment at the court of the court below, the actual owner of the business, M andO's coercion and oil, so the evidence of guilt cannot be proven.

Defendant has no economic ability to take over the instant sexual traffic business establishment, and I and H, who worked for sexual traffic women at the instant sexual traffic business establishment, did not know at all of the Defendant.

In the investigation report prepared by the investigative agency, the defendant is not the actual business owner but the president.

B. Legal principles 1) There is no concern for the defendant to escape and destroy evidence, and in particular, the current status of the second crackdown and crime and time contact is not recognized.

The arrest of a flagrant offender against the defendant should be illegal, and the secondary evidence accordingly should be denied the admissibility of evidence in accordance with the rule of exclusion of illegally collected evidence.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the lawful requirements for the arrest of flagrant offenders.

2) The submission of the evidence of reinforcement as to the confession by the Defendant in the instant case is the statement of H, I, F, G, etc., the suspect interrogation protocol, the seizure protocol, and the seizure list. The seizure protocol and the seizure list are irrelevant to the confession of the Defendant due to the Defendant’s absence at the site. There is no content that the Defendant is the business owner of the instant sexual traffic establishment, even in the statement of H, I, F, and G and the suspect interrogation protocol.

Since the evidence of reinforcement that can reinforce the truth of the confession of the defendant was not submitted, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rules of reinforcement of confession.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence examined in the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts, the following facts and circumstances are recognized.

The defendant's act of arranging sexual traffic for business such as facts charged can be recognized based on this.

1) On January 2016