The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that determined otherwise, although the Defendant 2 attempted to have an interview with the U.S. student E, which is China, and did not have conspired to arrange to engage in the commercial sex acts with the above Defendant B, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution and eight hours of service in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant made a confession of the facts charged in this case in the court below's determination of the misconception of facts, and there are no circumstances to suspect the voluntariness of confessions, sufficient evidence to support it, and there are no new circumstances to reverse them in the court below's decision, and therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by the evidence of the court below is just and there are no grounds to

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant again committed another crime even after receiving a heavy disposition of suspension of indictment by arranging sexual traffic in the same building as the place where the instant facts charged were committed, and the lower court made a confession of the facts charged and again repeats a completely consistent statement by denying the crime, etc., which led to the conviction, and thus, the light of reflectivity is very lacking. Meanwhile, there is no change in circumstances that may be particularly considered in sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced, and considering two circumstances, including the motive and background of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s sentencing seems to be too uneasible.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it appears to be either as a part of the Defendant’s appeal or as there is no reason to do so. However, it is against the Defendant’s rejection of the crime by open logic after appeal.