All of the appeals filed by the prosecutor and the defendant A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) and the misunderstanding of the legal principles, the lower court acquitted the Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, even though the Defendant A sufficiently recognized the fact of compelling sexual traffic by placing the victim in difficult circumstances as stated in the part of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as sexual traffic brokerage, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case.

(2) Each sentence (Defendant A: 1 year of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended execution; community service; 120 hours; 3 million won of fine; 5 million won of fine; 3 million won of imprisonment; 6 months of suspended execution; 1 year of suspended execution; and 2 million won of fine) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants is unreasonable.

B. The above sentence sentenced by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts: ① (a) the victim was responsible for a certain amount of obligation from 2009 days before work in the sidewalk of “H” operated by the Defendant A; (b) the Defendant was demanded to lend money first to the victim; and thus, (c) the victim introduced the Defendant B to the victim; (d) the victim was working in the room of the H news report; (d) the victim was sent from the home to the H news to the workplace; and (e) the victim was unable to freely leave the workplace (for example, the number of attendance days was 4 to 5 times on March 2014), and (e) the victim was unable to reach the Defendant.

말하고 출근을 하지 않고 쉰 적도 있었고, 성매매를 하는지 여부는 기본적으로 피해자의 선택사항이었던 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 피고인은 성매매 대가를 손님이나 노래방 업주로부터 직접 받았고, 이 돈으로 채무를 변제하는데 사용하기도 했지만...