The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,00, and Defendant D and E, respectively.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation, collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended execution, community service order, Defendant D, and E): each fine of five million won is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B’s assertion that even though it was merely a mere change of a guest, it was recognized as an entertainment drinking house employee, and that there was an error of a suspended sentence, different from other visitors, the purpose of B’s assertion is to decide to the effect that the sentence is too heavy and the sentence is too heavy, as it is contrary to the suspended sentence, depending on the difference between the other visitors and the sentencing.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A’s instant act of arranging sexual traffic in collusion with F and I, etc. from October 3, 2018 to March 12, 2019 regarding Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is an act of arranging sexual traffic in H entertainment tavern in collusion with F and I, etc.

After the F, I, etc. was controlled, the act of arranging sexual traffic was committed independently from March 20, 2019 to March 30, 2019. The act of arranging sexual traffic was committed independently from March 20, 2019. However, it is not good to commit the crime. Unlike the assertion, Defendant A seems to have contributed to the act of arranging sexual traffic at a level that is not significantly different from F, a business owner, such as settlement of profits and distribution of profits of entertainment taverns, and the purchase and management of alcoholic beverages and goods, rather than as an employee of entertainment tavern, rather than as a mere employee of entertainment tavern. However, Defendant A was deemed to have contributed to the act of arranging sexual traffic at an investigative agency on several occasions (the statement made by other Defendants at the trial court of the first instance, the act of arranging sexual traffic was conducted jointly with F) and tried to reverse or destroy evidence, and the act of arranging sexual traffic was committed with a woman's commercialization and that it harms sound sexual culture and good custom, etc.

However, Defendant A made a confession of each of the crimes of this case and made his mistake.