All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (i) The Defendant was merely the so-called president of U Entertainment headquarters, and was unaware of whether he had engaged in the act of arranging sexual traffic on October 20, 2016 as indicated in the instant facts charged, and there was no fact that he participated in the said crime.

Even if the Defendant is deemed liable as the nominal owner of the above entertainment shop, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the act of arranging sexual traffic, which occurred at V entertainment points, rather than U amusement centers (the Defendant was registered as the business entity of U amusement points from November 11, 2015, and thus, constitutes misunderstanding of the facts that the lower court specified the time of the commission of the crime as around March 1, 2015). The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of October 200, the fine of KRW 7 million, and the community service order of KRW 80 hours) inappropriate.

B. Defendant G’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence in August, and seven million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A (i) argued to the same purport in the lower court’s judgment. However, the lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, which are: (i) the Defendant received KRW 2 million per month as the price for the so-called funeral of each of the instant U amusement stations, and agreed to be punished as the main agent in the event that the said entertainment stores are controlled by the business of arranging sexual traffic; (ii) according to the Defendant and the Defendants’ statements, each of the instant entertainment stations was engaged in the business of arranging sexual traffic; and (iii) the customers of the said entertainment stations were aware that they were able to engage in sexual traffic at the above entertainment stations; and (iv) thus, some of the customers did not actually engage in sexual traffic, or the Defendant did not actually engage in sexual traffic.