The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts at the request of Defendant B, the Defendant merely assisted J and I to sing in two “G karaoke machine” operated by the Defendant. As stated in the instant facts charged, the Defendant did not arrange for a entertainment loan by allowing I and J to sing and dance with the said singing customers, such as having them sing and dance with the said singing customers.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the imprisonment for six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the probation, and the community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing in respect of the defendants) sentenced by the court below to the defendants (the above sentence: defendant A; defendant B; defendant B; 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor; 2 years of suspended execution; 1 year of probation) are too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was duly convicted of the charge of the instant case on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant introduced I and J from Defendant B operating “H,” as stated in the instant facts charged: (b) introduced the Defendant’s “H,” which had two male customers, into three rooms of the Defendant’s operation, which had been a male customer; and (c) made the Defendant feel entertainment by having his customers sing their singing together with their customers and dancing; and (d) thereby, the Defendant was sufficiently convicted of the facts charged of the instant case.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant who is a karaoke machine business operator of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant and his defense counsel.