All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. According to the ex officio determination on the legitimacy of Defendant B’s appeal, Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of five million won on August 30, 2019 due to a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) and filed a petition of appeal on September 5, 2019. However, on March 24, 2020, Defendant B failed to file the statement of grounds of appeal within 20 days prior to the deadline for submitting the legitimate grounds of appeal even when the notification of the receipt of the notification was received by this court. The petition of appeal does not contain

Nevertheless, Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing, etc. through the submission of documents, etc. after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal, but such assertion is filed after the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal. Therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground for

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do466, Mar. 10, 2011). Furthermore, even if examining the allegation of unfair sentencing ex officio, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unreasonable sentencing, as otherwise alleged above.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a decision to dismiss an appeal filed by a defendant B should be made, but as long as a public prosecutor and the defendant dismissed an appeal filed by a public prosecutor and the defendant A, the dismissal of an appeal shall not be separately decided and sentenced together by the

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s erroneous search of facts constitutes an illegal search without the issuance of an ex post facto search warrant, and the testimony of the E found at this time is inadmissible as evidence collected. Defendant A has no choice but to engage in the arrangement of commercial sex acts from April 1, 2018 to April 5, 2018. 2) The lower court’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. A public prosecutor (Defendant A) erroneous determination of facts) Defendant A had taken over the instant establishment around May 2017 and had engaged in the business of arranging sexual traffic until March 31, 2018. 2) Defendant A was on the grounds of unfair sentencing.