The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant confessions and reflects the instant crime, and that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc. are favorable circumstances.

However, the act of arranging sexual traffic does not have a significant social hazard, such as commercialization of women's sex and harm the sound sexual culture and good morals, and there is a need for a simple and strict punishment against the proprietor of an illegal sexual traffic business in order to prevent the spread of the illegal sexual traffic business establishment and to establish a sound sexual culture, and the defendant has the history of having been sentenced two times, and the defendant committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period, reported the marriage with C who does not have ordinary intelligence, and continuously committed sexual traffic to C. Even after being subject to the regulation of sexual traffic on several occasions, there are very little crimes such as continuing to commit sexual traffic while moving the place, and there are other various kinds of sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, family environment, and circumstances before and after the crime.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, since the facts of the lower judgment are apparent that the “Gel” in paragraph (1) of the same Article is a clerical error in the “Nel,” it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure