The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of 2 years and 6 months and fines of 3,00,000, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment of 10 months and 10 months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the legal doctrine [the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (or brokerage business act, etc.)] Defendant only took place with an officetel residing in the J, and did not arrange sexual traffic by the J.

Even if the defendant's act of mediating the defendant is recognized, the defendant did not "business".

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the above facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the imprisonment of three years and six months and the fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (two years of suspended execution and three million won of fine in 10 months) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) In order to determine the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the Prosecutor changed the facts charged against Defendant A with violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Good Offices, etc.) among the facts charged against Defendant A as stated in the “a summary of the primary facts charged.” In addition, Article 14(1)4 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse applies to the name of the crime as “a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse” and Article 14(1)4 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. The Prosecutor added the facts charged with the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as the Mediation of Commercial Sex Acts against the Defendants (or brokerage of commercial sex acts, etc.), and applied for amendments to the indictment with the content of changing the name of the crime as stated in paragraph (2) of the criminal history column.

Inasmuch as this court permitted this and changed the subject of adjudication, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants became no longer able to maintain it.

2) Meanwhile, the lower court suspended the execution of Defendant B’s instant crime and Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months at the Gwangju District Court on July 15, 2016.