The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal was that the Defendant requested several real estate brokerage offices to rent the instant building, and in light of the circumstances where, while entering into a lease contract, the Defendant did not know that E was trying to operate a commercial sex business establishment in the said building, in the event that the said building did not engage in illegal business but did not engage in illegal business, such as forfeiture of security money.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant provided a place for arranging sexual traffic by concluding a lease contract with E even though he was aware that he had operated sexual traffic establishments in the above building, despite having known that he had operated sexual traffic establishments.

1) In the instant building, there are many entertainment facility-related enterprises around the building, and there are many of the tenants, and thus, there is a considerable possibility that they will engage in illegal business by leasing the instant building. In particular, D, lessee, operated a commercial entertainment business establishment in the instant building on or around May 2014, and the Defendant was given a warning that a commercial entertainment business establishment may be subject to criminal punishment in the event of subsequent operation of a commercial entertainment business establishment in the instant building under a police investigation process conducted on or around July 2014. However, the Defendant was given counsel with the attorney, such as having been given a high possibility of committing the act of arranging commercial sex acts, but the Defendant leased the said building to E through the so-called “Maroman”, which is the name of intermediary business establishment to intermediate the acquisition, etc. of the marina business establishment through D, under which the Defendant and lessee concluded a lease agreement between the Defendant and E under the name of the lessee, rather than the name of the lessee, “H”.