All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged against Defendant C (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intentional act of arranging sexual traffic in violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (hereinafter “the Act”).

2. The lower court convicted Defendant D of the facts charged against Defendant D (excluding the part on acquittal in the grounds of appeal).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the calculation of the amount additionally collected in the crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground

Therefore, in this case where the defendant D was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Defendant E maintained the first instance judgment convicting Defendant E of the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the calculation of the amount additionally collected in the crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts.

As seen above, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been pronounced may be appealed on the ground of unreasonable sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where Defendant E was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. The Defendants’ final appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.