All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant E are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, E, and D1 were not involved in the operation of the “S” entertainment shop (hereinafter “S”). Defendant A, E, and D did not act as a broker for engaging in sexual traffic, but the lower court found Defendant A, E, and D guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A, E, or D (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 7 million won of fine, 8 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 3 million won of fine, 3 million won of imprisonment, 8 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C, F1, and F were aware of the fact that they were used as the place of sexual traffic, and even if they did not provide Wurhers 810 to the entertainment shop of this case (hereinafter “the instant telecom”), the lower court found Defendant C, F, and F guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) misunderstanding of legal principles) The facts charged in the instant case are as follows: (a) arranging sexual traffic by providing a place of sexual traffic from February 1, 2015 to February 16, 2015; (b) however, except February 16, 2015, the sex purchaser and the other party are not indicated; and (c) therefore, the facts charged was specified to the extent that the Defendant can exercise his/her right of defense.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) In light of the developments leading up to the detection of the instant case, the instant public prosecution was instituted by an illegal naval investigation, and the prosecution procedure is also unlawful.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant C and F (Defendant C: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 7 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant E is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts.