The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not lead to the fact that the Defendant was female sexual traffic, E.

Since the police officer who pretended to be a customer did not actually intended to engage in commercial sex acts, even if the defendant listed E as F in the inn of this case, the crime of arranging commercial sex acts is not established.

Since control police officers were unlawfully engaged in the investigation into a vessel that causes criminal intent, such as demanding the defendant to receive sexual traffic women, the indictment of this case constitutes a case where the procedure therefor is unlawful and invalid as it is in violation of the provisions of law.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant, at the will of arranging sexual traffic, has laid off E, a woman of sexual traffic, as the innick of this case

In light of the relevant legal principles, as long as the defendant with the intention of arranging sexual traffic connects a female to a crackdown police officer, it is not different whether the crime of arranging sexual traffic is established according to the internal deliberation of the crackdown police officer.

Examining the relevant legal principles and the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s act of arranging sexual traffic to a traffic-related police officer who pretended to be sexual traffic in South Korea cannot be deemed to have caused criminal intent by the investigative agency’s deception or attack. Therefore, it is difficult to view the act as an illegal naval

The above argument of the defendant is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the allegation of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the said legal doctrine is based.