The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, E, a customer, had no intention to engage in sexual traffic and did not actually engage in sexual traffic, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though the Defendant’s act does not constitute sexual traffic.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case shall not arrange, solicit, induce, etc. sexual traffic.

Nevertheless, around 22:00 on June 24, 2019, the Defendant: (a) sought “D”, which is an entertainment drinking house for the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant located in the B building C in Silung-si; (b) arranged one male customer of sexual traffic.

B. Determination 1) The Defendant argued to the same effect as the above grounds for appeal. Accordingly, the court below held that the "act of arranging sexual traffic" under Article 19 (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic is sufficient if the parties did not intervene any more by connecting the intentions of the parties who intend to engage in sexual traffic, and based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the act of the Defendant constitutes an act of arranging sexual traffic, since the Defendant's act constitutes an act of arranging sexual traffic, since the customer E does not enter the above entertainment drinking house to allow sexual traffic, and the Defendant paid the price including the price for sexual traffic, and then the fact can be acknowledged with the mother, and the court below rejected the Defendant's aforementioned assertion in light of the relevant legal principles. 2) The court below's fact-finding and decision is just and acceptable, and there is a mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendant.