All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although the Defendant did not engage in the act of arranging sexual traffic as indicated in the lower judgment, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 7 million, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the case of a crime of a single offense of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the part of innocence), the facts charged are sufficient if the facts constituting the element are stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts, and the proof of the facts charged are sufficient to prove the time and completion period of the crime, method of crime, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted of this part is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and in the misapprehension of legal principles, despite the fact that the part concerning the mediation of sexual traffic from December 15, 2015 to April 28, 2016 was a single comprehensive crime, and the time, completion period, and proof of the method of crime was proved.

2) The punishment of the lower court’s unfair judgment in sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and examine the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the witness F and E’s statements in the court below to the effect that “the female employees were frighten in their sexual organ at the time of visiting the instant business establishment as the customer,” ② the witness G and H’s statements in the court below to the effect that the employee was frighted to the instant business establishment, and the employee was frighten and fright while making sexual intercourse, ③ the employee was frightd to the customer without agreement with the Defendant, the main business owner.

In full view of the facts that are not consistent with the empirical rule, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(b) mistake of the prosecutor;