The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged without any other reinforced evidence, in the event of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, including the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts among the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules of confession reinforcement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, evidence of confessions can only be recognized to the extent that it can be recognized that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized, and it can only be proven that the confession of the defendant is true, not processed, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence, which is not direct evidence, and if it is possible to prove the facts of the crime as a whole due to mutual evidence of confessions and reinforcements, it is sufficient to prove the evidence of guilt (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11272 Decided December 23, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, according to the reply to communications data, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant and sexual traffic are only or promised to only 303 square meters at the time of the crime in this part of the facts charged, and the defendant's statement in the court below's court is not processed, based on each of the above evidence, the defendant's reply to the confession of the message of the defendant can be confirmed.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the circumstances where the Defendant had been convicted of eight identical degrees of punishment, and where six months have not yet passed after release, the Defendant again committed the same thief crime during the period of repeated crime, which led to his mistake when he led to the confession of the facts of crime.