All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of five million won on July 25, 2015 (hereinafter “final judgment”) by committing a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, including brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic at the Seoul Central District Court in April 3, 2015 at the Seoul Central District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 25, 2015 (hereinafter “final judgment”). The instant crime was committed from May 17, 2015 to June 2, 2015 and from June 26, 2015 to June 2015, which was before the final and conclusive judgment was rendered. The instant crime and the crime of final and conclusive judgment constitute a single comprehensive crime, which is the same business crime, and the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment also becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.

The Defendant is merely an employee of a sexual traffic business establishment, who is not a business owner of the “F” and thus is in violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (mediation, etc. of sexual traffic).

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In addition, as in the instant case, the entire amount of profit gained from the act of arranging sexual traffic has been acquired by E, which is the main business operator operating the overall sexual traffic business place, such as the type of punishment sentenced to the Defendant (unfair sentencing), and if the Defendant’s benefits received from E is merely the consumption of money and valuables acquired in return for arranging sexual traffic, it is reasonable to impose a fine concurrently and deprive the Defendant of illegal profits if it is impossible to collect the benefits.

The Defendant alleged that the judgment of acquittal of the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine should also be pronounced an acquittal of the facts charged in this case, and the lower court may consider the facts and circumstances of the judgment and view the facts charged in this case as a separate crime for which the unity and continuity of the criminal intent is not recognized from the final judgment.