All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When considering the facts that Defendant A (unfair sentencing) led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, that there is difficulty in life as a visual disabled person, that there is no health condition, and that there is only minor criminal records of a fine other than one time before and after the same suspension of execution, the punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) Defendant D’s mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine merely helps Defendant A to make a pro-friendly job offering, and Defendant D did not intend to operate the instant sexual traffic business establishment or to act as a broker for sexual traffic, etc. with Defendant A. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, as it is, by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

In addition, Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Intermediation of Commercial Sex Acts, is a so-called bad status in which punishment is aggravated because it is the business of arranging commercial sex acts. Thus, if Defendant D without such status participated in the act of Defendant A, who is in the position of business owner, Defendant D without such status, is an accomplice of the crime pursuant to the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act, even if he/she becomes an accomplice of the crime pursuant to the proviso of the same Article, Article 19 (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Intermediation of Commercial Sex Acts, should be punished pursuant

However, the lower court was unlawful since Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic was applied to Defendant D as well as Defendant A.

Shebly sentenced to Defendant D’s punishment is too unreasonable when considering the fact that Defendant A was friendly to assist Defendant A, and that there was no distribution of operating income in relation to the operation of the instant sexual traffic business establishment.

2. The grounds for appeal by Defendant A are considered in light of all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant.