The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant led to the confession of all the facts charged in the instant case. Of the facts charged, the crime of violating the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts, such as brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic, does not require reinforcement of individual acts as a business offender.

Therefore, despite the fact that the defendant operated a marina business establishment and the statements made by female employees at the investigative agency during the period from August 24, 2015 to March 17, 2016, it can be a supporting evidence for the defendant's confession that the commercial sex acts were arranged for business during the period from March 24, 2015. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules on the reinforcement of confession, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, community service, 160 hours, 40 hours during the lectures to prevent sexual traffic, confiscation, additional collection of 23,210,000 won) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the charges in this part of the charges is as follows: (a) from August 24, 2015 to October 20, 2015, the part of the Defendant’s “from around October 20, 2015, to the end of December 20, 2015” (it is obvious that the Defendant is a clerical error in the part of “from October 20, 2015,” which read “from October 20, 2015,” the part of the judgment below No. 5 of the judgment below, which read “from October 20, 2015) the third floor of the commercial building located in Gwangju Mine-gu, the third floor of Gwangju Mine-gu, “E Maz”, which reads “E Maz”, made female employees engage in a similar sexual intercourse that makes customers s

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant made a confession to the effect that this part of the facts charged was admitted, but there was no evidence of reinforcement of the said confession, and the confession by the Defendant is the only evidence against the Defendant, and cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that this part of the facts charged is proven.