The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Since the court below rejected and notified all of the applications for compensation order filed by the applicant for compensation, each of the above applications for compensation order became final and conclusive immediately.

Therefore, only the part of the judgment of the court below belongs to the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C, D, A, F, G, and H1 are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles as seen below. Defendant C (1) did not induce or induce Defendant C (1) to become the counterpart of the act of purchasing sex with the business, and the act of arranging sexual traffic to S is not a business.

(2) The Defendant is merely aiding and abetting a X to commit an act of arranging and soliciting sexual traffic, and there is no fact that he committed a crime as a co-principal.

(3) A separate punishment under Article 15(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse is double punishment to punish a person again pursuant to Article 14(1)4 of the same Act.

B) Defendant F, G, and H (1) did not induce or induce the other party to the act of purchasing sex as a business with R and S, and the act of arranging R and S for sexual traffic is not carried out as a business. Moreover, considering the legislative intent of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the grave statutory penalty, the meaning of “business” which is the constituent element of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, should be strictly interpreted and applied to only adult intermediaries. (2) The Defendants merely assisted and abetted B’s act of arranging and soliciting sexual traffic, and did not commit the act as a joint principal offender. (2) The lower court’s decision on unfair sentencing is unreasonable. (3) The lower court’s punishment on each sentence sentenced to Defendant C, D, A, F, G, and H (Defendant D’s imprisonment with prison labor for four years and four years, Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for two years and two years, Defendant F, Defendant G, and Defendant H’s imprisonment with prison labor for six years and six months, etc.).

(b) prosecutor 1 mistake of facts;