All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant did not have conspired and participated in the crime of special robbery as indicated in the judgment below, which was committed by I, and could not have predicted such special robbery.

B) The Defendant did not have engaged in the solicitation and participation of the victim N and Q to capture for the purpose of sexual traffic, and did not exist at the kidnapped site (in addition, the victims did not voluntarily comply with I et al. upon I’s recommendation, so the abduction itself is not established). C) The Defendant did not have engaged in the solicitation and participation of I in inducing the victims to engage in sexual traffic and arranging sexual traffic between the victims and other males. Rather, the Defendant only opposed or told I to the crime of coercion and mediation of sexual traffic.

D) However, the court below found the victims guilty of all charges of special robbery against the defendant, violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Compulsory Robbery, etc.), violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Good Conduct, etc.) on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Joint Confinement, etc.) on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the grounds as stated in its holding, although I did not have engaged in the solicitation and participation of victims for the purpose of sexual traffic, and rather, it merely referred to “the victims to leave the house after such abolition” (the victims are in a situation where they can freely leave the room, etc.). However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a sentence of three and a half years of imprisonment, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program with 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is decided by the lower court.