The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (Article 2-2-2(b) of the facts stated in the original judgment) does not constitute sexual traffic as stated in the judgment below.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that sexual traffic was committed as stated in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

① The Defendant and Co-Defendant B, C, and D decided to engage in sexual traffic at the P points operated by O, and the Defendant paid the drinking value and the sexual traffic price directly with a stolen card as indicated in the lower judgment.

② The P shop owner asked the police to question “I have engaged in sexual traffic in the P second floor in the future,” and thereafter asked “The four persons engaged in sexual traffic in the fore B have all engaged in sexual traffic” to question “I have all four persons who have all engaged in sexual traffic in the fore B.”

(Evidence No. 244-245). (3) Co-defendant D of the first instance trial stated in the prosecutor's office that "It is true that he/she has engaged in sexual traffic because he/she has done sexual traffic because he/she had ever taken a drinking and had ever taken a drinking, she had ever taken a drinking, and she had ever taken a drinking again to P, again she would have done sexual traffic." The content of Co-defendant D of the first instance trial is consistent with this part of the facts charged.

(No. 2, No. 430 pages). Co-defendant B and C also made a statement consistent with this part of the facts charged in police investigation or telephone conversation with prosecution investigators.

(Evidence No. 17, No. 1, No. 61). (4) The Defendant has no intention to engage in a sexual relationship, and the Defendant is a contact and coffee.