Defendant

All appeals filed by the Defendants B and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) The Defendant, who was the husband of the instant business establishment, misunderstanding the facts, only received a customer as he did not have any her husband, and did not know the fact of sexual traffic, as the Defendant did not have any her husband, but did not know about the fact of sexual traffic.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B, which was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to the acquittal portion against Defendant A, which the lower court operated “E” from July 2016 to November 2016.

However, during the above period, the registration of the business was still made in the name of the defendant A, and the card sales occurred in the name of the defendant A.

Therefore, H was involved in the operation of the business for the above period.

Even if the actual operation of the business is deemed to have been done by Defendant A, it is reasonable to view that the defendant operated the business in question from the end of September 2015 to February 7, 2017.

In addition, during the above period, there are a considerable number of sales in which the credit card sales in the above business establishment exceed 200,000 won, which seems to have been sales by commercial sex acts in consideration of the price of the massage of the above business establishment, and the defendant engaged in the business of arranging commercial sex acts for the above period

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants against the illegal Defendants in sentencing (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of surveillance of protection and community service order, Defendant B: 5 million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court’s reasoning based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts was based on Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, including the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, No. 2155, Jun. 6, 2015 (the brokerage, etc. of commercial sex acts).