The judgment below

Among them, the part of confiscation and collection for Defendant A and the part on Defendant E shall be reversed, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspension of execution, and fine of thirty million won) is too unreasonable. 2) The amount of KRW 55,00,00 of the lease deposit return claim of KRW 130,000 as stated in the [Attachment 3] and the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the confiscation and collection is not paid as criminal proceeds. Thus, the subject of confiscation should be excluded. Of the income deposited in the Defendant’s account under the Defendant’s mother’s name, the sum of KRW 260,000 should be excluded from the amount of additional collection for the Defendant since it was paid to the women of sexual traffic. However, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) against Defendant E is too unreasonable.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is favorable to the Defendant that he/she does not repeat again in his/her mistake, that he/she did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and that there are some circumstances that may be considered in the Defendant’s living environment.

On the other hand, it is highly necessary to eradicate since the act of arranging sexual traffic harms the sound sexual culture and good morals, and the fact that the defendant committed continuously and repeatedly over a considerable period of time is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant A’s confiscation and additional collection

A. Determination on the part of confiscation.