The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the calculation of the surcharge of the first instance is justifiable, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal for misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles disputing it, and upheld the first instance judgment

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding regarding the number of crimes of arranging sexual traffic, the amount of profit per time, and the amount of distribution to accomplices is merely an error of the lower court’s decision on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the relevant legal doctrine as indicated in the lower judgment, and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the punishment of the act of arranging sexual traffic or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the imposition of punishment or incomplete hearing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable, including

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.