A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) The Defendant accepted H (hereinafter “H”) from R to commit the act of arranging sexual traffic at a certain point; (b) however, there is no fact that the Defendant conspiredd with R, who is the subject of R, with Defendant B. Defendant B was placed in the instant establishment to receive KRW 20 million of the facility cost to be paid to R; (c) the Defendant was under the control of Marined Police Officers when he was found to receive KRW 20 million of the facility cost to be paid to R; (d) the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B1) misunderstanding of facts in collusion with Defendant A and did not arrange sexual traffic acts or establish a massage place as described in the facts charged as the manager of the instant business establishment. The Defendant completed around 02:10 on July 15, 2014, on the date of crackdown, and urged Defendant A to provide equipment and facilities for which the instant business establishment is subject to R., and Defendant A would bring money to Defendant A, and only he was subject to crackdown between Defendant A and his house. 2) The sentencing of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant B conspired with Defendant A, the manager of the instant business establishment, to establish a massage clinic and to July 15, 2014, as described in the facts charged, at the instant business establishment from June 20, 2014 to July 15, 2014, constitutes an act of arranging commercial sex acts (a). (b) The facts of Defendant A conspired with Defendant B are also acknowledged. (c) According to the respective written statements of the lower court by J, I, M, K, and L, as well as the written statements of J, I, J, I, I, and M, the date of control, according to the Defendant B’s respective written statements of the lower court, around July 15, 2014, under the pretext of J, I, and Ma, who is a customer of the instant business establishment, from around July 15, 2014.