The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the misunderstanding of facts, there was no actual sexual act at the time of the instant case, and C, an employee of the Defendant, did not arrange sexual traffic, and the Defendant was unaware of this.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the term "sexual traffic mediation" means the act of arranging or facilitating the convenience of sexual traffic between the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic. Thus, to arrange sexual traffic, the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic must not necessarily reach the level of actual sexual traffic or face-to-face with each other. However, even though the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic by linking each other with the parties intending to engage in the sexual traffic, if there is an act of arranging to the extent that the parties are able to engage in sexual traffic even if there is no involvement of the intermediary, the parties intending to engage in the sexual traffic, at least by linking each other, even if there is no involvement of the intermediary, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do808, Feb. 17, 2005). Although L and M did not actually engage in sexual traffic with female employees of the instant entertainment drinking house, it is sufficient to view this issue as an act of arranging sexual traffic, this is not acceptable.