Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

except that this judgment.

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (two years of suspended sentence for August, 200, 80 hours of community service, and 40 hours of attending the course of the sexual traffic prevention) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendants B and C (1) and mistake of facts, and ① The Defendants did not participate in the operation and management of the I entertainment tavern of this case even when they registered their business on November 30, 2012 under the name of A, and the above change of the representative was not in the form. The instant I entertainment tavern of this case’s business is the same as that of a sexual traffic intermediary business that had been operated under the trade name of H at the same place as that of H in the previous place, and the sexual traffic intermediary business related to H’s operation was already punished by the judgment on the record of criminal records in the lower judgment. Therefore, the part of the instant business of arranging sexual traffic of this

(2) The card sales generated by I entertainment tavern include not only the price for sexual traffic of 50,00 won once, but also the drinking value. The amount to be collected shall be limited to the portion of the price for sexual traffic.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant B: imprisonment of one year, additional collection of 124,539,306 won; imprisonment of two years, community service, 80 hours, 40 hours, 124, 539, 306 won) is too unreasonable.

C. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of the facts about Defendant A’s violation of the Employment Security Act : (a) Recognizing that Defendant A introduced J and received prepaid payment to Defendant A; and (b) it should be deemed that such prepaid payment included the introduction cost prescribed in the Employment Security Act; and (c) therefore, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of

(2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unjust.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination is made, the applicable provisions of the Employment Security Act regarding the violation of the Employment Security Act among the charges against Defendant A in the trial of the Prosecutor at the trial of the case are as follows: Article 48 subparag. 1 and Article 18(1) of the Employment Security Act.