All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (the part not guilty of the reasoning of the judgment below)

A. According to the evidence submitted by the victim, such as the victim's testimony, etc., which was subject to intimidation, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged as to coercion of sexual traffic, and erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The lower court recognized the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and based on this, proved that this part of the facts charged is beyond reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see

The Court rendered a not-guilty verdict.

Examining the various circumstances cited by the lower court in a thorough and consistent manner with the record, there is no reasonable circumstance to deem that the lower court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

We do not accept the Prosecutor’s assertion that the lower judgment erred by mistake in fact on the premise different from this premise.

2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it should be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the grounds that the new materials of sentencing were not submitted in the instant case.

In addition, the defendants, only 15 years old, solicited the victims to engage in sexual traffic and allowed them to engage in sexual traffic over several times. The defendants received part of the money that they received as sexual traffic and used it as their living costs, and the defendants use the victim's sexual traffic online with the victim's sexual traffic with the victim's sexual traffic, and with the victim's sexual traffic, the victim's sexual traffic acts are going to go to the destination of the promise.