The judgment below

The amount of the order collected shall be KRW 1,870,000, respectively.

A. Defendant A1) The Defendant did not have taken part in the act of arranging sexual traffic between Co-Defendant A and Defendant B.

B) The Defendant, jointly with Co-Defendant B, did not have committed indecent act by compulsion against the victim G.

2) Even if the facts charged of this case were to be found guilty, the lower court’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, etc., comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to whether the Defendants conspired to commit a crime in violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (a brokerage business, etc.) and the contents of text messages sent and received by each other, and Defendant A’s statement in the fifth trial record of the lower court that Defendant A was involved in the crime of arranging sexual traffic in Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant B, the fact that Defendant A engaged in the act of arranging the purchase of sex of a child or juvenile as stated in the lower court’s criminal facts is sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, the crime of confinement against Defendant A is not reasonable. Accordingly, the crime of aiding and abetting a person’s freedom of action is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area because of its protected legal interest and thus making it impossible or extremely difficult for the person to leave the specific area as such is not only physical or mental disability but also physical disability that may be psychologically and without penalty.