The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court's fact-finding was erroneous with regard to the earnings from the arrangement of commercial sex acts with regard to the calculation of the amount of additional collection, and the amount of additional collection was also calculated erroneously.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the amount to be collected, the lower court, on the ground that the Defendant received 80,000 won or 170,000 won from male customers per day at the instant business establishment and had four married women employed in advance at the instant business establishment to have sexual intercourse, and that the amount of profit thereby reaches 45,00,000 won, was collected additionally.

The defendant asserts that the defendant was 3,00,000 won for sexual traffic women, and the number of male customers is 4,5,000 won for each period when they are the most favorable to the defendant or the most objective number. Since the sexual traffic amount is 80,00 won when they are the most favorable to the defendant, the amount of sexual traffic is 3,3120,00 won for which the defendant actually acquired, if he deducts the amount distributed to sexual traffic women, employees, advertisements, etc.

However, at the time of investigation by the prosecution, the defendant employed four female employees, such as telephone telegramss of the nationality of Thailand, from May 2018 to August 7, 2018, the defendant received 80,000 won or 170,000 won as the price for sexual traffic from male customers, and made female employees and sexual intercourse with them. The average amount of 50,000 won per day, except for the allowances paid to female employees who received an average amount of 15,000 won per day, was punished, and the minimum amount of 45,00,000 won or more per day was punished during the total operating period (Evidence Record 273 pages), and the court below stated that all facts charged were recognized during the trial date. At the time of crackdown on the business of this case, three married women were working at the scene, but the employee E was not “.”