A. Legal principles are related to the Defendant’s crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, including the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, against Busan District Court Decision 2014No 3967, and the time of the crime is prior to the final appeal decision (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3746) of the instant case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3746). Thus, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the charges of this case constitutes double punishment.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the standard point of time where res judicata effect of a criminal judgment extends to the effect of a public prosecution and the final and conclusive judgment is the final point of time when a criminal judgment is rendered, which is the final point of time where there is possibility of a factual hearing.

The fact that the ruling of the Busan District Court 2014No. 3967 was rendered on February 13, 2015, the appellate court of this case is significant in this court. The date and time of the crime stated in the facts charged in this case is the same year from February 14, 2015.

5. Since it is up to 28. 28., the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment is clear that it does not affect the facts charged in this case, and the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles against

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant did not have committed a second offense even though the trial was in progress for the same kind of crime; and (b) the period and method of the crime; (c) the Defendant does not seem to have seriously reflected; and (d) the Defendant’s age, family relationship, economic situation, and all other matters regarding the sentencing as indicated in the records and changes of the instant case, the sentence of the original judgment is deemed appropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.