All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a quasi-indecent act), and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on the grounds that the amount of damage inflicted upon the defendant was not proven, and found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on the punishment of Violences, etc. (joint attack). The court below found the defendant not guilty of the charges charged in violation of the above facts charged.

Thus, since each of the above parts of innocence was separated and confirmed separately, it was excluded from this Court's judgment, and the above part of innocence was judged in accordance with the indivisible principle of appeal along with the verdict of conviction, but it was still exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties and was actually excluded from this Court's judgment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) misunderstanding of the facts of the defendant or misunderstanding of the legal principles (violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse) G, the mediation period for sexual traffic from the end of May 2016 to the same year.

6. A week until April 2, 201, and from June 29, 2016 to June 201.

7. From February 4, 200 to the point of view that, in Q, the frequency of brokerage of commercial sex acts is limited to one time, so that the defendant's brokerage of commercial sex acts is simple and short, and the defendant only played the role of the assistant, and there was an economic ability to maintain his livelihood with another trend at the time, the defendant's brokerage of commercial sex acts was "business".

It is difficult to see it.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (six years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is relevant.