All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and February of one year and a fine of KRW 5,00,00.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding misunderstanding (the judgment of the court below No. 1) Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 402 "C" (hereinafter "this case's 1 sexual traffic business establishment").

The actual owner of the business was V and W.

Defendant is only the chief of office.

B. Improper sentencing (the judgment of the court below) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. The lower judgment on the Defendant’s judgment ex officio was separately sentenced, and both the Defendant filed an appeal.

This Court decided to consolidate two appeals cases with one another.

Therefore, since each crime of the judgment below is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the argument of mistake about the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence investigated by the appellate court as to the assertion of mistake of facts (the first instance judgment), the Defendant is recognized to have been the owner of the instant 1 commercial sex business establishment.

① The Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant was the owner of the instant sexual traffic business establishment in the investigative agency and the lower court’s court.

However, after the judgment of the court below was rendered, the same trade name in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Officetel No. 802, 806, 1101, 1817 (hereinafter “the second commercial trade business”).

When the court of first instance sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year (the judgment of the court of second instance) due to the additional crime with the content that he operated (as of February 15, 2015), the court of appeal worked as the head of the office rather than the owner of the business in the first commercial trade business in this case, and changed the words.

In relation to the 2nd sexual traffic establishments of this case, the "police suspect interrogation protocol" is not the owner in the investigation process.

“Along with W”, “Along with L while operating in the same way as W, it was in transit to L.

“The facts” and “the 2nd sexual traffic establishments in this case.”