The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant F is reversed.

Defendant

The F shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and E (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (i.e., 6 months of imprisonment, additional collection of 250,000 won, and (ii) Defendant E’s imprisonment of 8 months, additional collection of 37480,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant F (1) The Defendant was merely selling his own Dong-gu M (road name address: Dong-gu, Gwangju-gu) land and its upper building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to C, etc., and did not provide it as a sexual traffic place.

(2) misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant provided the instant real estate as a sexual traffic place.

Even though the defendant does not engage in commercial sex acts as a broker for commercial sex acts, the real estate of this case does not constitute criminal proceeds under Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) (i) of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds.

B) Even if the Defendant engaged in commercial sex acts, such as arranging commercial sex acts

Even if this case’s real estate was confiscated, the lower court’s measure is unlawful against the principle of proportionality.

(3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, protection observation, community service 80 hours, confiscation, additional collection 26 million won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

A prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (i.e., a fine of KRW 7 million, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 14,2630,00,000,000,000 won for Defendant C: fine of KRW 5 million, additional collection of KRW 3,7480,000 for Defendant D; ③ Defendant D: imprisonment of KRW 2 years, protection observation, community service, additional collection of KRW 80,000 for 8 months, and ④ the rest of the Defendants are too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant F’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport in the lower court.

Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that, despite being aware of the fact that the Defendant provided the instant real estate to C, etc., the Defendant could recognize the fact that the said real

(2) The lower court’s judgment on the above deliberation.