All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. Although Defendant A did not arrange sexual traffic between F and female employees, Defendant A was guilty of the facts charged in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B did not neglect the duty of management and supervision over Defendant B, who is an employee of the singing shop, in order to prevent the act of arranging sexual traffic. The judgment of the court below convicting Defendant B, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on both punishment provisions, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by Defendant A’s assertion, Defendant A’s assertion is recognized as having arranged sexual traffic as stated in the facts charged, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

① At the police and the prosecution, F, a male, asked “E-sing point” and Defendant A asked “Iping Iphere Iphere Iphere Iphere Ipth (Evidence No. 106 of the evidence record),” and “Iphere Iphere Iphere Iphere Iphere at the Defendant’s initiative before the instant case,” and “Iphere Iphere Iphere, while accompanying Iphere Iphere at each time of the instant case. On the instant day, F, a male, Sweter and E-sing point and Iphere Iphere (“Evidence No. 107, 108 of the evidence record”).

Although the above F is deemed to have reported to the police with a complaint against Defendant A in the course of buying sex on the day of the instant case, the above F’s statement consistent with the criminal facts in the judgment is recognized as sufficient as credibility in a specific consistent manner, even if such circumstances are considered.

(2) Defendant A is related to KRW 200,000 received from F.