The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles1) The instant indictment was instituted based on the illegal naval investigation conducted by a police officer in charge of crackdown, and thus, the instant indictment should be dismissed as it constitutes a case where the procedure for instituting a public prosecution is null and void as it violates the provisions of law. 2) Even if there was no illegal naval investigation conducted by a police officer in charge of domestic control, the Defendant’s act does not constitute an arrangement of commercial sex acts

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. However, even if the Defendant was guilty of an unreasonable sentencing decision, the court below’s punishment (the imprisonment of eight months is too unreasonable.)

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is acknowledged that the investigation of a crackdown police officer, which served as the basis for the prosecution of this case, was lawfully conducted, and that the defendant committed the act of arranging sexual traffic by acting as an intermediary to the extent that the police officer could engage in sexual traffic (this does not affect the establishment of the act of arranging sexual traffic by the patrol police officer). Thus, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court should respect the sentencing of the first instance court.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In the instant case, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment. As such, the following conditions are all the conditions of the pleadings and the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age and happiness environment, the details and contents of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.