All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles - The defendants merely participated in the act of arranging sexual traffic with E, F, and G (hereinafter “E, etc.”), and did not think that the act of arranging sexual traffic continues to be repeated. In fact, the period and frequency of such act are substantially about 11 times during about 13 days, and there is no big profit from the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc., the defendants cannot be deemed as engaging in the act of arranging sexual traffic.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendants engaged in the business of arranging sexual traffic is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of legal principles as to the assertion of legal principles refers to a case in which a person continues to engage in certain affairs based on his/her social status, and in other words, certain acts are conducted repeatedly or repeatedly or with intent to continue. Determination as to whether such acts fall under this case shall be made in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as repetition and continuity of the act, business nature, etc., existence of such act, purpose, size, frequency, period, mode of appearance, etc. In addition, repeated and continued acts, as well as repeated and continuous acts, if an act is committed with the intent to repeat and continue such acts, such acts may be deemed as having been committed once (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do935, Jun. 13, 2003; 2012Do4390, Jul. 12, 2012).