The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months and the confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect each of the crimes in this case. It is recognized that the defendant has an attitude to simultaneously consider equality with the case in relation to the crime of violation of the Immigration Control Act established in the judgment of the lower court and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, in light of the above circumstances, the lower court appears to have determined the defendant's punishment in light of the fact that there is no change in circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the judgment of the lower court, the period and scale of the business of the act, such as arranging sex trafficking, etc., the defendant's motive for and punishment of the act in this case after the judgment of this case, etc.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.