A. Defendant A (1) argues that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below for the following purposes.

(A) As to the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) in the holding of the lower judgment, the Defendant cannot be a co-principal even if the Defendant can be a criminal of aiding and abetting the arrangement of commercial sex acts, and even if it is recognized as an accomplice of the arrangement of commercial sex acts, the Defendant does not constitute an act of arranging commercial sex acts for the purpose of commercial sex acts.

(B) As to the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. in the case of 2020Kadan44, the judgment of the court below, the defendant merely caused Co-Defendant I (hereinafter "I") to operate a marina business in the form of intermediate tax, and the defendant was unaware of the operation form of the above business and the fact that commercial sex acts were conducted, so the defendant cannot be a co-principal even if he can be a crime of aiding and abetting the act of commercial sex acts.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and ten months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B and H Defendants (Defendant B: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service, 6 months of imprisonment, 6 months of confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Article 19(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides for the punishment of a person who arranges sexual traffic, and Article 19(2)1 of the same Act provides for the aggravated punishment of a person who arranges sexual traffic for business purposes.

Here, commercial sex acts are conducted.