The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On May 8, 2014, prior to the date of brokerage of sexual traffic of this case, the Defendant received a summary order stating that he/she arranged sexual traffic of this case, and paid the same up to the fine determined by the summary order.

The defendant has arranged commercial sex acts for business purposes, and such a final summary order shall have effect on the crime of this case, and a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the defendant to a fine is erroneous.

2. In a case where the act of arranging sexual traffic is conducted repeatedly under the single and continuous criminal intent, it constitutes a business criminal, and thus, it is necessary for the defendant to be prosecuted and sentenced as a business criminal in the final summary order where the defendant is tried to be acquitted of the act of arranging sexual traffic in this case.

However, a final summary order against the defendant is merely an indictment and a punishment under Article 19(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., which is not a business offender, and it cannot be deemed that the final summary order's effect extends to the brokerage of sexual traffic of this case.

See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9077 Decided September 10, 2015, which was sentenced to the Defendant on September 10, 2015. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the final summary order has the effect of engaging in the act of arranging sexual traffic in this case is without merit.

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