The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 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. The police officer’s assertion that the indictment is null and void due to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle that the indictment is made due to an illegal naval investigation. As such, the investigation is unlawful, and the prosecution based on this is also null and void. 2) Since the control police officer did not have any intention to purchase sexual traffic at the beginning, it is impossible for the Defendant to reach the sexual traffic with his/her employees, since he/she did not know that his/her employees would engage in sexual traffic. 2) As such, the Defendant did not act as intermediary to arrange sexual traffic.

3) The lease deposit of a business establishment asserting that the confiscation is illegal is not caused by criminal acts or is not acquired in return for brokerage of commercial sex acts, and the defendant does not provide a building with knowledge of the fact that the business establishment was provided for commercial sex acts, as his/her employees were unaware of the fact that the business establishment was provided for commercial sex acts. Accordingly, the claim for return of the lease deposit of a business establishment does not constitute subject to confiscation. In addition, since there was no prosecution related to confiscation against the defendant, the defendant may not be sentenced to confiscation. 4) According to the police officer’s statement that the defendant alleged that the collection charge was erroneously calculated, he/she may receive the prior notice, stating that “the average number of customers per day on the date of opening the door of the business establishment is 1-2.” However, the above statement does not mean that he/she has

The surcharge calculated on the basis of this does not coincide with the profit earned by the defendant.

5 The police officers' assertion that the statement has no admissibility because they did not notify the U.S. doctrine to the defendant at the time of the crackdown, but did not notify the defendant of the U.S. doctrine.