The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant was employed by C who operated the instant commercial sex acts and worked as an employee, and did not operate the instant commercial sex acts jointly with C. 2) The Defendant stated that E is an employee of the instant commercial sex acts according to the direction of C, which is the actual owner of the instant commercial sex acts, and the Defendant, who is an employee of the commercial sex acts, did not instruct E to make the said false statement.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (the first crime on the market: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the second crime on the market: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant and C are co-owners of the instant sexual traffic establishments during the investigation process of the instant case, and the Defendant consistently stated to the effect that “60% of the profits of the instant sexual traffic establishments shall have been agreed upon by C and the remainder 40% shall have been carried out by C, and they shall operate the instant sexual traffic establishments together with C,” and the lower court stated to the same purport; ② C provides funds for the initial operation of the sexual traffic establishments; ③ the Defendant appears to jointly operate the instant sexual traffic establishments by jointly taking charge of overall business affairs, such as employment of employees and fund management, etc. of the sexual traffic establishments; ③ When the instant sexual traffic establishments were subject to criminal punishment, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant sexual traffic establishments operated the instant sexual traffic establishments jointly with C and operated the instant sexual traffic establishments, is sufficiently justified.