1. The part of the judgment of the court below of Defendant A1 against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of four years and six months.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the coercion, etc. by coercion against a child or juvenile)) did not compel the said victim to become the counter-party to the act of purchasing sex by threatening the victim K. Although the victim K made a statement consistent with the Defendant’s assertion of innocence in the court of first instance, the court below denied the credibility of the above legal statement by relianceing the Defendant’s statement in the investigation agency of the said victim, which was improper. The court of first instance found the Defendant guilty of the charge of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the coercion, etc. by coercion against a child or juvenile) due to coercion against a sexual traffic against a child or juvenile. (2) The court of first instance erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant.

B. Defendant B1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, etc. among the judgment of the court below in the second instance) did not engage in the business of arranging the purchase of child or juvenile sex as stated in this part of the facts charged, or doing so. The Defendant, from November 2017 to January 1, 2018, offered the brokerage of commercial sex acts, did not offer the brokerage of commercial sex acts from January 2018 to April 1, 2018, and if he/she wishes to engage in commercial sex acts, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a business nature since he/she had been detained. Nevertheless, the court below's judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the brokerage, etc.) was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.