All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The lower court erred in calculating the surcharge by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 years of suspended sentence in August, 198, community service 160 hours, and surcharge 970,693 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B was unaware of the fact that sexual traffic was being committed in the instant building. Defendant B was not aware of the fact.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, 8 million won of fine, and 577 million won of a surcharge) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine) The lower court determined that Defendant A’s profit was the revenue acquired by Defendant A, among KRW 23,464,06,064 deposited between November 28, 2015 and February 20, 2016, KRW 9,976,693 ( =23,464,064 x KRW 5/12,064 x less than KRW 5/12).

B) As to this, Defendant A included a customer who was Mad even among the above KRW 23,464,064,064, Defendant A erred in calculating the additional collection charges by the lower court.

The argument is asserted.

C) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, Defendant A stated at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation that “at the time of the investigation (see, e.g., evidence No. 129 of the record), the instant operating period is 114 days from November 23, 2015 to March 16, 2016; Defendant A did not engage in commercial sex acts; Defendant A did not voluntarily engage in commercial sex acts; Defendant A is likely to be a customer who received math, even though math.

The statements were made (see, e.g., 129 pages of the evidence records) average three customers per day during the above period.

In light of the fact that the revenue earned by Defendant A exceeds KRW 9,976,693 of the additional collection amount by the lower court as the revenue of KRW 17.1 million ( = 114 days ¡¿ 3 x 50,000), it cannot be deemed that the calculation of the additional collection amount by the lower court is excessive.

D) Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the above legal doctrine is without merit.

2) Determination as to the wrongful argument of sentencing is as to the crime of this case by Defendant A.