The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant did not engage in acts such as arranging sexual traffic as stated in the facts charged, and did not register as the business entity of “E”, and did not manage and operate the pertinent business for the purpose that the economic effect of the business belongs to himself/herself.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of sexual traffic has erred by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the suspension of the execution of the imprisonment for six months, the suspension of the execution of the imprisonment for twenty years, and the lectures for the prevention of sexual traffic for forty hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination (in the first instance trial, the amendment of an indictment was made to the effect that the date and time No. 3 of the attached list of crimes among the facts charged is “ March 27, 2015.” from “ March 27, 2015.” However, the judgment of the court below is not reversed on the ground that the purport is to correct the clerical error in the judgment below and the indictment, as the purport is to correct the clerical error in the judgment below and the indictment. Article 19(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts, Including the misunderstanding of the legal principles, provides for the punishment of persons arranging sexual traffic, and Article 19(2)1 of the same Act provides for the aggravated punishment of persons who arrange sexual traffic for the business of arranging sexual traffic.

Here, it is not necessary to arrange commercial sex acts for the main purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts, but it means arranging commercial sex acts continuously and repeatedly for commercial purpose by running a business related to commercial sex acts or accompanying such business activities, and engaging in commercial sex acts refers to managing and operating the relevant business with the economic effect of the pertinent business (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12275, Sept. 10, 2015). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant is the defendant.