The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

The punishment for A shall be four years.

1. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendants asserted that the actual owner of the instant sexual traffic business place (2016 high 360 cases) is separate from the actual owner of the instant sexual traffic business place, and the Defendants asserted that the instant sexual traffic business place (2016 high 360 cases) is an AI for the actual owner of the instant sexual traffic business place (2016 high 360 cases), and Defendant A is merely an employee of AI and Defendant B merely introduced female employees to engage in sexual traffic.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendants are deemed to have operated the instant commercial sex acts as shown in the facts charged, and even if the actual owner of the instant commercial sex acts is AI as argued by the defendants, the defendants were actively involved in the instant commercial sex acts and also engaged in the instant commercial sex acts.

Therefore, the above circumstances alleged by the Defendants do not interfere with the finding of guilty of this part of the facts charged, and cannot be deemed as the sentencing factors to be newly considered for the Defendants compared with the original judgment.

This part of the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

① Defendant A stated at the prosecutor’s office that he was the actual owner of the instant sexual traffic business establishment, and recognized this in the court below’s trial, and at Do investigating agency, KS, a woman of sexual traffic, called Defendant A as the president.

was stated.

In addition, Defendant B also led to the confession of all of the facts charged in the original trial.

② A AI registered as an occupant of an officetel in which the instant sexual traffic business establishment is located is the relationship between Defendant A and the private village, and the relevant officetel is owned by a construction company with which the AI manager works as the director of the division. An AI has been unsold in an investigation agency and the management expenses, etc. are paid to Defendant A on the condition that Defendant A pay for the management expenses, etc. thereof.