The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the above evidence, it is recognized that the police officer of the J and the prosecutor's statement against the mistake of facts (as to the defendant A), admitted the admissibility of evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant A has exercised a functional control over the operation of a sexual traffic business establishment through division of action.

B. The lower court’s sentence (as to the Defendant, A and E: each fine of KRW 15 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 10 million) is too uneased, and both of them are unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the Criminal Procedure Act of the relevant legal doctrine (hereinafter “Act”)

Articles 312(4) and 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act adopts the substantial principle of direct cross-examination and the hearsay rule that the formation of a conviction against the substance of a case must be conducted through the examination of evidence in which the cross-examination of the original evidence is guaranteed in the presence of a judge in the presence of a judge. However, in special circumstances where the aforementioned principles cannot be fulfilled due to the death of the person making the original statement, etc., the purport of Articles 312(4) and 314, namely, “when it is proved that the statement or preparation was made in a particularly reliable state,” namely, the purport of exceptionally allowing admissibility of evidence only when there is little room for false intervention in the contents of the statement or the preparation of the protocol or documents

Therefore, in order to recognize admissibility of evidence in accordance with Article 314 of the Act, there is no apparent procedural error in the process of preparing the relevant statement or protocol, or there is no specific circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the statement. It is not sufficient that the court can sufficiently secure the credibility and voluntariness of the statement even without going through cross-examination, etc. in the court.