The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months and by a fine not exceeding 3,00,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although not only the confession of the prosecutor's defendant but also the confession of the defendant was pronounced not guilty on the ground that there was no supporting evidence, according to the account transaction details used by the unemployment state I for the crime, the crime of this case is sufficient supporting evidence, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentencing of the lower court on the accused of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and three million won of fine) is too uneasible.

Defendant

The sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too inappropriate.

Reinforcement evidence of confession of legal principles related to determination of mistake of facts by the prosecutor is sufficient if it is only sufficient to recognize that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not sufficient to recognize the whole or essential part of the crime, and if it is sufficient to prove the crime as a whole as evidence of guilt in light of mutual balance with confessions.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant stated in the prosecutor's office that he/she had arranged sexual traffic since February 7, 2012, which began to operate as the president in the E massage procedure.

According to the report on establishment of a massage place and the certificate of business registration, the defendant is recognized to have opened the massage place on February 3, 2012 and opened the massage place from February 7, 2012.

According to the credit card payment settlement statement filed in the name of the E massage practice office from February 7, 2012 to October 29, 2013, which was submitted at the trial, the sum total of the settlement details for each credit card company.