The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the mediation of sexual traffic under the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant cannot be punished unless the punishment for attempted sexual traffic was provided.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the term "act of arranging sexual traffic" under Article 19 (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic means that the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic make good offices or convenience. Thus, in order to act of arranging sexual traffic, the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic does not necessarily have to reach the level of actual sexual intercourse, similar sexual intercourse, or face-to-faced sexual intercourse, but at least there is sufficient arrangement between the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic to the extent that it is possible for them to do so, even if there is no involvement of the intermediary, even if the parties intending to engage in the sexual traffic,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8808 delivered on February 17, 2005). According to the records duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant informed the police officer who was the most likely to be a guest with shower room and any other secret room in which a shower room and a betack are installed, and that there is a fact that a female employee provided a "brue with a brue after a shower with a thickness," and that "the brue is flue with a brue with a thickness," and according to the above facts, there was an act of arranging sexual traffic between the parties to the extent that it can be possible to do so.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. On the argument of unfair sentencing, the defendant has already committed the same kind of crime.