The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not know that he did not arrange sexual traffic for business purposes as indicated in the lower judgment, and did not know that female employees employed by him did sexual intercourse similar to that of his customers.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because of its excessive sentencing.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail as to the same argument as the Defendant’s grounds for appeal.

Examining the records in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such judgment of the court below is just, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has arranged commercial sex acts for business purposes as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant has no power to punish the defendant in an unreasonable sentencing.

However, in order to eradicate sexual traffic, there is a great need to punish the act of arranging sexual traffic, and even until now, it is difficult to say that the defendant has actually divided his mistake.

In addition, in full view of the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health status, criminal records, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit