The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months and fine of 30,000,000 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficient to recognize that Defendant A was the joint principal offender who conspiredd and conspiredd with the special injury crime against Defendant B, such as the crime stated in the judgment of the court below. However, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A had the intention of joint processing necessary for the establishment of the joint principal offender and the functional control based thereon, and that there is no other evidence sufficient to acknowledge it. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including Defendant B and C’s statement on the part that the Defendants inflicted injury on the victim X using the reported block, which is a dangerous object among the special injury by the Defendants, including Defendant B and C’s statements, despite the fact that the Defendants committed a special injury by the victim X as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of the part that the victims suffered injury as stated in the judgment of the court below, considering the Defendants’ injury by using the reported block, which is a dangerous object, among the facts charged for special injury by the Defendants X, as a dangerous object, in the course of committing the crime of special injury by the victim X as stated in the judgment of the court below. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including each statement of the women of sexual traffic (S, T and U.) as stated in the judgment of the court below, although it can be confirmed that Defendant B acquired profits through the act of arranging sexual traffic.