The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of the misunderstanding of facts was a person with a disability of class 3 with intellectual disability who significantly falls below the general public.

Therefore, the Defendants transferred the body of the victim to the victim under the circumstance that the victim is unable to request for any protection.

It can be seen by Defendant C through the mother AB, and one million won can be seen as compensation for taking over of the victim, not as general introduction expenses, so there is sufficient proof of the Defendants’ human trafficking crime.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 3 years of imprisonment; 80 hours of order to complete the course; and 3 million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. According to the ex officio determination records on Defendant A, Defendant A may be recognized as having been sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for a special intimidation at the Gwangju District Court on January 7, 2016 (Seoul District Court 2015No 500), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 15, 2016.

On the other hand, since the crime of this case and the crime of special intimidation established in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are in a single concurrent relationship after the latter part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, punishment for the crime of this case shall be imposed by taking into account equity in the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article

In this respect, the conviction part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Even if one of the grounds for reversal ex officio, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of the facts about the acquittal portion is still subject to the judgment of this court, which is common to the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of the facts about the defendant C who is a necessary public offender.

3. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A, like the facts constituting the crime 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, has induced the victim F and has lived together with the victim F.