All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the part on the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, distribution, etc. of obscene materials) in the judgment of the court below) Defendant D merely conspired with the other Defendants only for the crimes such as abduction, coercion, mediation, etc. of sexual traffic, and did not participate in this part of the crime of producing obscene materials in collusion.

This part of the crime of manufacturing obscene materials was started without the defendants' invitation as a contingent proposal, and since Defendant D was also at the place of photographing after the commencement of the motion picture shooting, it is difficult to view that Defendant D had a functional control over this part of the crime.

Therefore, even though Defendant D is not a joint principal offender of this part of the crime of producing obscene materials, the judgment of the court below which recognized Defendant D as a joint principal offender of this part of the crime is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The respective sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of five years and four years, etc.; Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of four years and three years, etc.; Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of three years, three years and six months, etc.) imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on Defendant D’s assertion of “the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles” refers to the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act committed jointly by two or more persons, and thus, the intent of co-processing is a subjective element. However, the intent of co-processing is the recognition of co-processing with the intent of moving one’s own intent to implement a specific criminal act, and the intent of the co-processing would be one of the two parties, and it does not necessarily necessarily lead to any conspiracy with each other in advance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do985, Jun. 11, 1991). In addition, the co-principal relationship between two or more persons and co-offenders who jointly process in a crime.