All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B1’s violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Good Offices, etc.), although the Defendant has arranged the act of buying the sex of juveniles as stated in the lower judgment’s criminal facts, considering the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s participation, the period of and profits from the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant engaged in such act as a business. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant B also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and as to this, the lower court acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the following facts and circumstances, i.e., (i) Defendant B, including other Defendants and G, and Defendant A’s house; (ii) repeatedly contacted with a large number of unspecified sexual buyers through a mobile phone-type display case for a period of not less than two months, and mediates the act of purchasing the sex of the above juveniles; and (ii) Defendant A, B, and C were found to have continuously engaged in sexual intercourse through G and L; and H and J, which actually came to have been engaged in sexual intercourse upon the request of the above Defendants (However, the Justice did not reach a sexual relationship).

(3) In light of the fact that Defendant B participated in and aided the instant crime through Defendant B, and the said juveniles engaged in sexual traffic up to two to three times a day (one time of sexual traffic) and that the said juveniles received money from said juveniles without any other occupation to engage in sexual traffic and appropriate it for living expenses, entertainment expenses, etc., it can be deemed that Defendant B engaged in sexual traffic in collusion with Defendant A as a business.