All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding Defendants did not act as an intermediary with repeated intent, and thus, engaged in the business of committing the instant crime.

Although the Defendants could not be seen as engaging in the business of arranging the purchase of sex by juveniles

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants (for the Defendants, three and half years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of the program to prevent sexual traffic brokerage, and Defendant A: Confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, “business” means a case in which a certain act has been conducted repeatedly or repeatedly with an objectively considerable number of times (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga1, Oct. 25, 201). Whether such act constitutes a case should be determined in accordance with the social norms by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the repetition of an act; (b) the purpose, size, frequency, and mode of the act; and (c) the repetition of such act; and (d) the continuous act may constitute an act only once conducted with the intention of repeated; and (e) the act may constitute an act of arranging or arranging sexual traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 203Do935, Jun. 13, 2003; 2012Do4390, Jul. 12, 2012).