All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or legal principles 1) The J, K, and K intentionally concealed their age at the time of the instant case, and it was difficult to see the appearance or uniform as a minor.

Therefore, the Defendants did not have the intention to have the juveniles be engaged in entertainment.

2) Although Defendant B had already received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a result of the violation of the Occupational Stabilization Act with respect to the criminal facts of this case, punishment of Defendant B again violates the principle of non-existence of the same matter of crime, thereby violating the Juvenile Protection Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (for the Defendants, two years of suspended execution in April, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service in April) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court. However, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants’ intentional violation of the Juvenile Protection Act as alleged on the grounds of appeal and Defendant B’s non-existence of the principle, on the grounds of detailed reasons. The reasoning for the lower court’s judgment is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the lower court, except for the addition of the following circumstances on the grounds that the Defendants did not have any intention to commit the instant facts charged, on the grounds that Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act was applied.

① Defendant A sought to verify his/her identification card by asking age J and K, but did not indicate his/her identification card.

J and K did not take the above confirmation measures in the court below’s main point. However, J and K did not take such confirmation measures in the court below’s court.

was stated.

② Defendant B, upon Defendant A’s request for the dispatch of Doesmimimimimimimi, the O was aware of the age of J as the employee of the I branch office operated by Defendant B (J’s legal statement in the lower court). He was introduced from Defendant B.