Defendant

With respect to A, the lower court’s sentencing (200,000 won of fine) against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.

Defendant

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to B, Defendant B may fully recognize the fact of arranging sexual traffic as stated in the facts charged, even during the period from the end of July 2014 to September 13, 2014.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the judgment.

The sentencing of the lower court on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, probation, and order to attend a course) is too uneasible and unfair.

Considering various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed unreasonable because it is too unafford.

Defendant B, the gist of the charge on the part of not guilty of the prosecutor’s allegation of mistake of facts as to Defendant B’s appeal against Defendant B, operated a business establishment with shower facilities and air room installed from July 2014 to September 13, 2014 with the trade name of “E” in the wife D and the wife population D and the third floor, and arranged commercial sex acts for business from July 2014 to September 13, 2014.

The lower court determined that the Defendant himself/herself recognized the fact that he/she operated the above establishment from the end of July 2014, but solely on such circumstance, the Defendant engages in sexual traffic for the business from the end of July 2014 to September 13, 2014.