The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With regard to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the controlling police officer of this case demanded sexual traffic and sexual traffic at the marina business place operated by the defendant (hereinafter “the instant marina business place”), thereby inducing the criminal intent of the defendant.

This constitutes a crime-causing type naval investigation, and thus, the prosecution procedure of this case is invalid in violation of the provisions of law.

With regard to the point of arranging sexual traffic, the controlling police officer did not intend to engage in sexual traffic, so even if the defendant arranged sexual traffic with female employees, the controlling police officer and female employees do not engage in sexual traffic, which is only an impossible crime, and thus shall not be punished.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The ex officio determination prosecutor is from March 19, 2019 to the same year the period of crime among the facts charged against the defendant in the trial.

9. An application for changes to the bill of amendment was filed by September 1, 200, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

Nevertheless, since the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles needs to be judged, the following is considered.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below duly adopted and investigated the evidence that the defendant constituted a type of crime-causing naval investigation, i.e., the control police officer: (i) obtained intelligence that conducts illegal sexual traffic at the end of the operation of the defendant; and (ii) asked whether the control police officer at the time would go against the defendant with the will of the defendant, and asked whether he will go against the will of the defendant; and (iii) the defendant instructed the above police officer by failing to guide him.