The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Of the facts charged in this case, violation of the Employment Security Act.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant of mistake of facts has received a remittance of KRW 2 million from I, the main owner of the business, from M, the defendant cannot be punished under Article 19(2)3 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., since there is no consideration for the defendant's transfer of money to N who introduced M immediately to the defendant who introduced M, and there is no consideration for the defendant's transfer of money to M to I.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which applied the above provision is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As long as the Defendant introduced M to I as the main owner of the business, and received two million won from I in return, even if the Defendant remitted the above two million won to N, the Defendant cannot be exempted from the criminal liability under Article 19(2)3 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic.

Since this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. B. Before determining the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the summary of the violation of the Employment Security Act among the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged, conducted fee-charging job placement services by introducing female women, including E, to entertainment establishments, without registering them with the competent authority from Apr. 2, 2013 to Apr. 29, 2013; and (b) providing them with job placement services.

However, Article 1 of the facts charged only includes the fact that the defendant introduced women to sexual traffic business establishments, but does not receive the introduction fee, and even according to all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant received the introduction fee by introducing women to sexual traffic business establishments, such as Paragraph 1 of the facts charged.

Therefore, although this part of the facts charged is not proven, the court below found the defendant guilty, it erred by mistake of facts.