The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the misunderstanding of facts, there was no actual sexual act at the time of the instant case, and H and I, an employee of the Defendant, did not arrange sexual traffic, and the Defendant was unaware of this.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the term "sexual traffic mediation" means 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, even if the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic are connected to each other and at least the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic and do so, if there is an act of arranging to the extent that the parties would have been able to engage in sexual traffic even if they do not intervene, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8808, Feb. 17, 2005). However, although L and M did not actually engage in sexual intercourse 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 court below's determination that the following acts of arranging sexual traffic had been conducted by the police officer during the following investigation stage.