The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (the part not guilty in the court below)

A. According to the evidence presented, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged as to the abduction of sexual traffic and aiding and abetting sexual traffic, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The lower court recognized the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and based on this, proved that this part of the facts charged is beyond reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see

The Court rendered a not-guilty verdict.

Examining the various circumstances cited by the lower court in a thorough and consistent manner with the record, there is no reasonable circumstance to deem that the lower court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

Based on the premise different from this, the Prosecutor’s assertion that there was an error of mistake in the lower judgment’s determination does not accept the Prosecutor’s assertion that the crime of aiding and abetting sexual traffic, which is included in this part of the facts charged, is established, even if there is no conspiracy relation with

However, in light of the circumstances stated in the lower court’s reasoning by not guilty of this part of the facts charged, it was sufficiently proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant aided and abetted sexual traffic as stated in this part of the facts charged by the evidence submitted.

2. In the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the unfair assertion of sentencing, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the Defendant partially recognized and against the instant crime, and the injury of the traffic accident victim is not excessive.