Part 3, 4, and 5 of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A's Decision 3, 4, 3.

1. The judgment of the court below against the Defendants on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the sentencing is unfair) is too unreasonable since the punishment of the court below against the Defendants (the imprisonment of August 1, 2, and 6 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the imprisonment of January 3, 4, and 5 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the imprisonment of January 1, 10, and the imprisonment of January 3, 4, and 5 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, No. 1139 of the Sinwon District Public Prosecutor's Housing Site No. 1139 of the Sinwon District Public Prosecutor's Office of Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office, and additional collection of KRW 1,75 million as stated in the evidence No. 1106 of the pressure of 2016, and KRW 1,75 million as stated in the defendant B, and KRW 3 million as stated in the judgment of the court below (the defendant A withdraws the legal principles and the legal principles on the date of the first public trial).

A. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Act on the Mediation, etc. of Ex officio Determination of Sex Acts by Defendant A provides that a person who commits an offense under Article 19 of the above Act shall be confiscated money and valuables or other property acquired by the offense, and where confiscation is impossible, the equivalent value thereof shall be additionally collected.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant A can be recognized as having obtained profits of 2.1 million won as a crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts (Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts) in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below erred by omitting this amount, even though it should be collected as a penalty (the evidence No. 2207, 2017,

B. Determination on the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing 1) Defendant A’s first of all, on the part of the crime Nos. 1, 2, and 6 of the judgment of the court below ( Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months), this part of the crime is that the Defendant employed four foreign women who do not have the domestic status of stay in the sexual traffic business for about five months in exchange for other Defendants (crime No. 1 and 2), and mediates sexual traffic with other foreign women (crime No. 6). Although the Defendant is against the mistake, the Defendant did not have the same criminal record before the instant case, the Defendant was implementing the taxi commission scheme, urged other Defendants to conduct business, and obtained considerable profits from the crime (crime No. 1 and 2).