The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term “act of providing a building despite being aware of the fact that the act of arranging sexual traffic is provided for sexual traffic” under Article 2(1)2(c) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic includes the lease of the building and the continuous lease of the building without suspending the act of providing the said building (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6297, Aug. 25, 201). In addition, in cases where the act of arranging sexual traffic continues to be “act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. for commercial purposes,” even in cases where the act of arranging sexual traffic is performed solely for commercial purposes or for commercial purposes as well as for commercial purposes, it constitutes “act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. for commercial purposes” under Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic. The perception of the crime of arranging sexual traffic for the business of arranging sexual traffic is sufficient without the need to recognize the detailed contents thereof.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8095 Decided September 22, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9575 Decided September 22, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 201Do14272 Decided December 22, 201, etc.). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized that the Defendant provided the place of commercial sex acts by leasing the building 5 and 6 floors of this case with the knowledge of the fact that the building 5 and 6 floors were provided for commercial sex acts, and further, determined that the calculation of the surcharge of the first instance court is justifiable, and rejected the allegation of facts and misapprehension of legal principles disputing this, and maintained the first instance judgment without accepting the grounds for appeal.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is based on the legal principles as seen earlier, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or is intentional in the crime of violating the above Act, and Article 19(2) of the above Act