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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and eight months and fine of twenty million won.

A. Defendant A 1) In the facts charged, Defendant A 2 did not arrange sexual traffic by J.

The defendant did not have a pro-friendly relationship to arrange sexual traffic with J, and there is no fact that J or K has received the compensation for sexual traffic.

B) While the Defendant was under pressure to repay his/her obligation from C, he/she did not have taken part in the sexual traffic as follows: (a) he/she was found to have the defect that C paid money through an entertainment business; and (b) he/she was equipped with the shape of cooperation and cooperation with B.

On May 10, 2015, the Defendant was in a coffee shop located in Seoul Eastern on May 10, 2015

There is no fact that N orO did not participate in a real interview, nor that K or C received a price, etc.

2) The punishment of the court below is heavier.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (Article 2(2) through (4) of the facts charged) the Defendant, at the “I” entertainment planning company, took part in the brokerage of commercial sex acts by engaging jointly with Defendant A, and does not arrange commercial sex acts continuously and repeatedly for profit-making purposes.

The profits earned by the Defendant through the brokerage of commercial sex acts are all KRW 2.5 million, which is received by the broker of commercial sex acts as provided for in paragraph (4) of the facts charged, and the J is merely merely corresponding to the simple subparagraph after the commercial sex acts. The Defendant does not constitute a case of arranging commercial sex acts.

2) The punishment of the lower court is heavier than the sentencing sentence.

(c)

The prosecutor (Defendant A) and the misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part of the reasoning) and the original statement made by the original prosecutor (Defendant A) are admissible as evidence in the interrogation protocol (No. 64) prepared by the judicial police officer against K, the statement made by K during the interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police officer against Defendant A (No. 65 of the evidence), and K’s statement (No. 90 of the evidence list) among the interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police officer against Defendant A, and this part of the charge is guilty on the basis of this.