The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is merely arranging sexual traffic once on February 7, 2013, which is the date on which the instant crime was controlled, and the Defendant is working as an employee of the sexual traffic business establishment during the remaining period specified in the instant facts charged, and does not have arranged sexual traffic.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake, the lower court can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant performed the act of arranging sexual traffic while serving as the head of the sexual traffic business place (employee) of the company “D” in the Il-dong-gu Seoul Building C from January 25, 2013 to February 7, 2013 during the period from March 25, 2013. As such, the Defendant has no merit.

1) The Defendant alleged that “The actual business owner of the above-mentioned commercial entertainment business establishment is G, and at the request of G, he lent the name of the Defendant at the time of preparation of the lease contract for the above officetel,” but the lease contract for the above officetel 714, which was provided as the place of commercial entertainment in this case, was prepared in the name of the Defendant, and the above argument is not persuasive in that all of the above lease contract is written in the name of G, and the contact details of the Defendant’s contact details are written in the above lease contract. 2) G borrowed from the court of the lower court, “S borrowed the name of the Defendant to rent an officetel. S used two mobile phones, and its phone numbers are H and I,” and the Defendant’s phone calls were made several times a day between the Defendant’s mobile phone and the above mobile phone during the period specified in the facts charged in this case, and the Defendant did not provide reasonable explanation thereon.

3. On the other hand, F, which is a female sex trafficking, is the age of the chief of the South Korean office in the investigative agency and the court below.