The judgment below

Of the above, the part concerning Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1’s misunderstanding of facts did not have a conclusive perception that the Defendant was “the 97-year birth” from his female at the time of employment as a juvenile, but did not have any confirmed perception that the Defendant was a juvenile under the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. 2) The instant business establishment was merely a business of arranging the purchase of sex, not a business of arranging the purchase of sex, but a business of arranging the purchase of sex of the juvenile. The instant Defendant had N, a juvenile, work at the instant business establishment, and the period of N, working, is only nine days. Accordingly, the instant Defendant merely arranged the purchase of sex of N, a juvenile, and does not engage in business as well as arranging the purchase of sex of N, which is a contingent business. Accordingly, it should be premised on the purpose of profit-making, and the said Defendant merely is an employee of the instant business.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the above Defendant is too unreasonable and unfair. B. Prosecutor (Defendant A) 1) the sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too uneasible and unfair.

2. According to the above defendant's prosecutor's statement, most customers of the business of this case can be recognized as having engaged in a similar sexual intercourse. However, it is unlawful for the court below to impose an additional collection charge on the premise that the court below accepted a vindication in the court of the above defendant's above defendant's above defendant's testimony and accepted a vindication

2. Determination

A. Even according to the above Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts regarding Defendant C’s grounds for appeal, the above Defendant argued that he/she was 97 years of birth from his/her female employed as an employee around April 2015.

If so, the above defendant was N.N.