All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendants of the lower court’s punishment (7 million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the arguments of this case and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants appears to have been reasonably determined by fully taking account of all the circumstances, including the various reasons for sentencing alleged by the Defendants, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is modified.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, since it is apparent that there is an omission of the entry of legal mitigation in the application of laws and regulations in the judgment of the court below against Defendant B, it shall be corrected by adding "1. Legal mitigation" to three 19 ex officio in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, and "Defendant B: Article 32 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (helping and aiding the establishment of a non-qualified massage place)" to the following acts.