A. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant’s employment restriction to a child or juvenile-related institution, etc. and a welfare facility for disabled persons for five years, respectively, in so far as the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable. 2) In so doing, it is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to place employment restriction for each five years.

B. Regarding the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act on the Abuse of Occupational Authority, etc.) and the victim's free will, the victims thought that the defendant has the ability to allow the victims to enter the entertainment field at the company level with the position of the representative of the entertainment company, and that the defendant did not actively refuse the defendant's refusal to enter the entertainment field, so the defendant was deemed to have "legal or factual protection or supervision status" of the victims. In addition, the victims did not contact the defendant for commercial sex acts, not for contact with the defendant, but for a model or friendship, the victims requested sexual intercourse, etc. with the victims while the victims were working as normal entertainment planning company, and the victims refused the defendant's demand to enter the entertainment field. In light of these facts, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Regarding the violation of the Employment Security Act, the victims reported online job offer advertisements to invite hosting models, and contacted with the defendant, entering into an exclusive contract with the defendant, and participate in MT proposed by the defendant for the implementation of the contract and comply with the defendant's instructions.