As to this, the Defendants only appealed against the guilty portion of the lower judgment, and the Prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion of the reasoning. However, the appeal against a part of the crime is all the crime and the acquittal portion is also included in the scope of the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do500, Feb. 9, 2001). The scope of the appellate court’s judgment includes the acquittal portion of the reasons indicated in the lower judgment.

However, examining the judgment of the court below on this part in light of the records of this case, we affirm the judgment of the court below and maintain the conclusion of this part of the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Until now, Defendant A and C did not recognize that sexual traffic was conducted between employees of entertainment establishments and customers in B hotel rooms G, etc. at the time stated in the facts constituting a crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and there was no prior consultation about accommodation on the premise of sexual traffic with the pertinent entertainment establishments.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination based on the premise that the above Defendants provided the above heading room, etc. as a place of sexual traffic and thus, was erroneous as it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A1 million won, Defendant B2 million won, Defendant C3 million won) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the Defendant A.