The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

750,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, the Defendant’s right of defense cannot be guaranteed on the following grounds: (i) the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.; and (ii) the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Of the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts, there is no evidence suggesting that E had engaged in selling sex over three times with regard to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. As to the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. among the facts charged, the Defendant did not have engaged in brokering sexual traffic.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the above facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that the facts charged are not specified in the facts charged, the purport of allowing the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the time, place, and method of the crime in the entry of the relevant legal principles is to limit the scope of trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. Thus, the facts charged is sufficient if the facts constituting the crime are stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and if it is inevitable to indicate it in light of