The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no actual sexual act at the time of the mistake of facts, and the Defendant did not arrange sexual traffic.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The assertion of mistake of facts refers to the act of arranging or facilitating the convenience of sexual traffic between the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic. Thus, to arrange sexual traffic, the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic must not necessarily reach the level of actual sexual traffic or face-to-face with each other. However, at least, even if the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic agree with each other to engage in sexual traffic and thus, there is an act of arranging sexual traffic to the extent that the parties are able to engage in sexual traffic, even if the parties do not intervene, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8808, Feb. 17, 2005). However, although L and M did not actually engage in sexual traffic with female employees of the instant entertainment drinking house, it is sufficient to view this issue as an act of arranging sexual traffic, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable. However, the lower court’s assertion that the following acts of arranging sexual traffic were made in collusion with the prosecutor’s office at the 6th stage of investigation.