The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts did not err by having G make a statement as if G was the actual owner of the business place, thereby instigating the Defendant to escape.

G First of all, the Defendant’s receipt of the proposal that “I will make the statement that I will work as the employer if the fine is prevented even if I were subject to the first offense control.”

Therefore, the defendant did not have instigated the criminal to escape.

B. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part concerning the violation of the Immigration Control Act is identical to the facts charged in the instant case where the Defendant violated the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.

Therefore, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced on this part.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The Defendant alleged that he did not interfere with G’s escape from committing a crime. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

① Unlike the Defendant’s assertion, G stated that, upon the Defendant’s request, the Defendant first led to “a person who was punished for sexual traffic, so that he/she would have been able to live together if he/she was under the control,” and the Defendant led to confession of all the facts charged in this part in the lower

In fact, the defendant has been sentenced to a fine twice for the same crime.

② At the Defendant’s assertion, G first proposed the proposal.

Even if the defendant asked G to make a statement to the investigation agency as if he actually operated a marina business place, and prepares and delivers a false lease contract, etc. that corresponds to the statement of G, and then let G submit it to the investigation agency, it is reasonable to view that the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal escape is established.

3. The assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle.