The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the business registration certificate registered by the defendant, N's suspect examination record, account transaction record, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that there is no evidence to reinforce the confession of the defendant as to this part of the facts charged. Thus, the court below which acquitted the defendant, has erred by misunderstanding the fact that it affected the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (the fine of five million won) is too uneased and unfair.

Reinforcement evidence of confession of legal principles related to determination of mistake of facts by the prosecutor is sufficient if it is only sufficient to recognize that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not sufficient to recognize the whole or essential part of the crime, and if it is sufficient to prove the crime as a whole as evidence of guilt in light of mutual balance with confessions.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by examining the evidence duly adopted at the court below and the court below’s specific judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2343, May 29, 2008). The court below’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

According to I A certificate of establishment establishment report and business registration certificate, the defendant opened the I Mama treatment establishment on December 1, 2012, and registered the business on December 6, 2012.

The Defendant, from the prosecution to the N upon the N’s request, stated that he had arranged sexual traffic since December 10, 2012, which began to operate as the president at the I Ama procedure, and led to confession of the facts charged in the instant case.

The N, the unemployment owner of the I Mama treatment plant, was investigated by the prosecution with the defendant, and stated that the defendant's statement related to the operation of the I Mama treatment plant is all true.