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 (one year of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, one year of probation, confiscation, and additional collection charges) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is based on the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, the act of arranging sexual traffic, such as the act of arranging sexual traffic, does not have much social harm by commercializing women's sex and undermining the sound sex culture and good morals, and it is necessary to cut off and impose severe punishment on the owner of the business that operates illegal sexual traffic business establishments even in order to prevent the spread of the illegal sexual traffic business establishments, and to establish a sound sexual culture, taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as equity in sentencing with the same or similar incidents, the period of the crime in this case, the size of the business and profits, as well as the defendant's age, happiness and family environment, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable (On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the amount of surcharge is excessive, and the purpose of collection pursuant to Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, etc. is to deprive the employees of unjust profits from the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc., the scope of collection is considerably limited to the profits actually acquired by the criminal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005-300 days from 200.