The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding Defendant and Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) did not jointly operate a sexual traffic intermediary business according to the division of roles, and only provided convenience to the extent that the Defendant was able to see the carcule when the carcule when the carcule was placed, without knowledge as a sexual traffic intermediary business establishment.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court determined in detail the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts under the title “determination as to whether the Defendant committed a joint crime” and recognized that the Defendant committed a joint crime under this part of the facts. In light of the records of this case, after closely examining various evidences adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court in light of the records, G made a statement to the effect that the Defendant’s defense corresponds to the Defendant’s defense, but it is difficult for G to believe the said statement in light of the content and attitude of the testimony, the reasonableness of the content of the statement itself

The above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. In light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the record, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed to be too unfair as it is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.