A. In full view of the following facts: (a) misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part against Defendant A and Defendant B); (b) Defendant B’s statement is consistent and specific; (c) found Defendant B’s main points operated by Defendant A on the day of the instant case; (d) was aware of Defendant B’s mobile phone numbers; (c) the characteristics of the male sexual traffic stated by Defendant B coincide with Defendant B; (d) Defendant A’s name at the place of business on August 27, 2014; and (e) Defendant A’s “J” appears to be a clerical error in the name of “I”; and (c) in the case of “K” as recorded in the name of the E’s place of business on August 27, 2014, the deduction of 2.60,000 won, not the service fee for the two hours from the advance payment, and it appears that Defendant B received 2,000,000 won from the price of sexual traffic; and (d) Defendant A arranged sexual traffic and had Defendant B and Defendant E engage in sexual traffic.

B. The lower court’s sentence (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the part not guilty against Defendant A and the assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant B, based on its stated reasoning, it is difficult to believe that the statement of Defendant E was made, and other evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged. The lower court determined that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and sentenced Defendant A not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, among the facts charged against Defendant A, and the latter part of Article 325 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) and the latter part of the facts charged against Defendant A. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court is insufficient to view that the circumstances indicated in the grounds