A. The defendant is merely required to prepare a written oath in order to prevent the victims from getting out of sexual traffic again. The defendant, at an open place, made victims contact or victims freely prepare a written oath. Since the defendant actually performed sexual traffic activities to eradicate illegal sexual traffic, such as handing over women coming out to women's sexual traffic from the old police station to the cyber investigation team in the old police station, and requesting the victims to investigate illegal sexual traffic, it cannot be deemed that the introduction of the victims himself to the police station women's sexual traffic is intended to threaten them, and there is a timely demand for the victims to contact and lend money first. In the case of the victim G, the victims' communication with the defendant first, and the victims contact with the victim, and the defendant did not have access to the victim's personal information without permission from the victims, and the defendant did not voluntarily recommend the victims to commit sexual traffic but did not respond to the victim's sexual traffic again. In full view of the fact that the defendant did not voluntarily prepare a written oath in order to prevent the victims from committing the sexual traffic.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in order to assist the women seeking sexual traffic through the Internet, and the fact that the injury was neglected due to the police officer’s strong seizure, etc., the lower court’s judgment.