All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (understanding the facts and violating the rules of evidence) did not have engaged in sexual traffic with H and I.

Each statement of H and I, consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, is not reliable, and there is a reasonable probability of an error in the entry of the “sexual traffic-related account books” prepared by I.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

B. Defendant B (defluence of facts and violation of the rules of evidence) did not engage in sexual traffic with I.

The I’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is not reliable, and the “sex trafficking-related account book” prepared by I is inadmissible, and there is considerable possibility of error in the statement.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. In light of the contents of the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance court was clearly erroneous in the determination as to Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts and the assertion of violation of the rules of evidence.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is remarkably unfair, or in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the additional examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s decision on the grounds that the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14065, Mar. 25, 2010).