The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation, surcharge 21,630,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. However, the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake is favorable to the Defendant.

However, in order to prevent the spread of illegal sexual traffic establishments and to establish a sound sexual culture, it is necessary to cut off and severe punishment against the owner of the business who operates illegal sexual traffic establishments. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crimes prior to the instant case, he again commits the instant crime as long as possible. In full view of the period of the instant crime, the size of the business and profits, as well as the Defendant’s age, family environment, circumstances after the instant crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Defendant asserts to the effect that the amount of the surcharge is excessive.

On the other hand, the court below seems to have calculated the minimum amount of the defendant's profit actually acquired on the basis of the number of daily sales and the business period recognized in the criminal facts revealed by the defendant in the investigation agency. Thus, it is not recognized that the collection charge against the defendant is improper.

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

(However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “L” as stated in the three to six parallels of “criminal facts” of the lower judgment shall be corrected to “M”.