The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant suspended the business of arranging the instant sexual traffic after being detained as a broker of the instant sexual traffic, but renewed the criminal intent after being released therefrom, and subsequently resumed the instant sexual traffic intermediary business. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the facts, even though the instant sexual traffic intermediary and the instant sexual traffic intermediary are individual criminal acts, which constitute one of the substantive concurrent relationships.

2. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the act of arranging the instant sexual traffic and the act of arranging the instant sexual traffic constitutes a single comprehensive crime, and sentenced the instant charges to be acquitted.

① Although the Defendant was detained on the two-month basis from November 13, 2014 to January 20, 2015, the Defendant appears to have employed a joint Defendant B, who used the same trade name at the same place without suspending his/her business for the said period, and have arranged sexual traffic in the same manner.

② At the time of crackdown on October 8, 2014, the Defendant was partially subject to seizure of a collection device, such as a computer, but this does not constitute an essential collection device for sexual traffic business.

In addition, the Defendant used CCTV for surveillance as it was until it was controlled by the instant case at the time of crackdown on October 8, 2014, and continued to operate his/her business in the same way in a disguised form (J party president, L et al. general offices), methods of restricting access (ADT closure security system and security release card), public relations methods (Internet publicity).

③ The Prosecutor cited the Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8645 Decided November 11, 2010, which was a matter of forfeiture of seized articles at the time of enforcement and suspension of business for 40 days due to the disposition of suspension of business, as the grounds for prosecution. However, the instant case does not have to suspend business, and is the same as the head of the game.