All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant A shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the part of the lower judgment on not guilty of the Prosecutor (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing), in full view of the following: (a) as to the part of not guilty of the lower judgment on the instant business establishment, the Defendants conspired to arrange the act of arranging sexual traffic in collusion with the Defendants in collusion.

In addition, the punishment sentenced by the court below (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and community service) is too unfortunate and unfair.

B. Defendant A (unfair form of punishment) did not file an appeal within a legitimate period of time.

Defendant

B The claim for recovery of the right of appeal was made by this court on July 23, 2018.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Even when considering the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants assisted sexual traffic. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

This part of the Prosecutor's argument is not accepted.

B. The determination of sentencing on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendant A is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of the sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is deemed that the sentencing of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions and the sentencing guidelines of the first instance court in the course of examining the sentencing of the first instance court, or that the sentencing of the first instance court is maintained as it is, comprehensively taking account of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’