All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of a fine of KRW 5 million imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had female employees engaged in a similar sexual intercourse, thereby engaging in acts such as arranging sexual traffic.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic among the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the judgment

2. Determination

A. We examine the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts in light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is insufficient to find the defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone for the reasons as stated in its reasoning is insufficient to find the defendant guilty of this part of the charges, and it is reasonable to find the defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that there is no other evidence to find this, and in the case of A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, (Evidence No. 150 of the Evidence Record), a "record" (Additional Evidence No. 2 or 8 of the Record No. 150 of the Evidence Record), and the "record Record" (Additional Evidence No. 2 or 8 of the Record), it is difficult to see that the police officer made a statement of the suspect during the investigation process and it was prepared in accordance with the "reasonable procedure and method"

As the prosecutor pointed out in the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

shall not be required to do so.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the part of the charges of violation of the Medical Service Act, which was found guilty among the charges of this case, and violated the wrong determination, and that the Defendant appears to be responsible for the livelihood of his/her family, such as her husband who is a person with a physical disability of the second degree.