The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that three floors leased to A were provided for sexual traffic, the Defendant did not have any intention to provide the building despite being aware of such fact.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of factual mistake and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court and the trial court, namely, H: (a) took charge of arranging sexual traffic under the trade name “Neb” from the Suwon-gu E and the third floor (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) on June 20, 2014, the Defendant was notified of such circumstances at the time by the police; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant continued to engage in sexual traffic brokerage activities in the instant building; (d) after the control, theO took over the premium at around April 2015 and arranged sexual traffic brokerage activities by taking over the commercial sex brokerage facilities; (e) P real estate was arranged for each lease agreement between the Defendant and theO, and (e) was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant and the Defendant, and (e) the Defendant’s first time from the date on which the instant building was put into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant and the Defendant, and (e) the Defendant’s sports establishment was within one week prior to the date of seizure to the first one week.

The statements are relatively consistent and specific.