Defendant

B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant B) merely lent only the name of the actual operator and the owner of the instant massage treatment establishment to Defendant A as the visually impaired, and did not have been involved in the illegal operation of the said massage treatment establishment. However, upon Defendant A’s request, Defendant B introduced the visually impaired massage treatment establishment, which was merely included in the scope of normal business activities of the massage treatment establishment. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on facts or by misapprehending the additional collection, thereby finding the Defendant guilty and thereby additionally collecting the name lending fee rather than the price for commercial sex acts.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of this case, the court below’s each sentence [Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, two years of suspended sentence, 160 hours of community service and 40 hours of education, confiscation and additional collection (235,202,230 won), Defendant B: 10 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of education, additional collection (67,700,000 won)] is too heavy or unreasonable (Defendant B), 10 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of education, additional collection (67,70,000 won).

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B does not merely lend the name of the place of massage treatment in this case, but can sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant B participated in the operation of the place of massage treatment, such as management of the place of massage treatment by being aware that the business method of the place of massage treatment is operated in an unlawful manner, such as having female employees engage in sexual intercourse with customers, and provided his qualification title to his massage treatment in this case with Defendant A while being aware that the place of massage treatment in this case is carried out by the place of massage treatment in this case. As such, once Defendant B provided his qualification title and operated the place of massage treatment in this case with Defendant A, the money received as compensation therefor.