All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although misunderstanding of legal principles (the crime of embezzlement against the victim P among the facts charged in the case 2014No1015), it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles, since the amount embezzled by the Defendant is used as a means of soliciting and inducing sexual traffic, and ownership is attributed to the Defendant because it constitutes illegal consideration.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for five months and the second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to judgment.

This court decided to concurrently examine the appeal cases of the first instance judgment of the second instance judgment against the defendant, and on the other hand, each of the offenses committed in the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so in this regard, the first and second lower judgment shall be reversed.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable to have determined that the amount embezzled by the Defendant does not constitute illegal consideration on the ground that there is no clear evidence to readily conclude that the amount embezzled by the Defendant is related to sexual traffic and the arrangement of commercial sex acts, etc.

The defendant is the case in the court below.