The judgment below

The remainder except the non-guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendants, misunderstanding of the legal principles, did not have any act of arranging sexual traffic by inducing I to engage in sexual intercourse with the customers of “N” (hereinafter “the instant entertainment shop”).

Since the police testimony of I, which the court below considered as evidence of guilt, was not supported under particularly reliable circumstances, it cannot be admitted as evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendants in relation to the accomplice relationship in G denies the admissibility of evidence, the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found a guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants (each of four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “A protocol in which a public prosecutor or judicial police officer recorded a statement of a person other than the defendant is admissible as evidence of the police statement protocol made to I, is prepared in accordance with legitimate procedures and methods, and such protocol is proved by a statement or video recording product at the preparatory hearing of the original statement or at the trial date, or by any other objective method, or if the defendant or defense counsel was able to interrogate the original statement at the preparatory hearing date or the trial date.”

Provided, That it shall be limited to cases where it is proved that the statements recorded in the protocol have been made under particularly reliable circumstances.

Meanwhile, Article 314 provides that "in the case of Article 312 or 313, the statement needs to be made at a preparatory hearing or on the date of a public trial."