All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Meanwhile, Defendant asserts to the effect that the actual operational date of a sexual traffic intermediary business establishment is less than the number of days recognized by the original court, and the amount of profit from the instant crime is less than the amount collected by the original court. However, the amount collected by the original court is deemed to be calculated within the minimum scope recognized based on the number of operating days recognized by the criminal investigation agency, average customer related to similar acts, and the amount of profit distribution among female employees. Thus, Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

1) In fact, the Defendant misunderstanding the fact and the Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) did not jointly operate a commercial sex acts intermediary according to the division of roles, and the Defendant only provided only convenience to the extent that the Defendant was able to see the carcule when the carcule was placed in the place of commercial sex acts without knowledge as a commercial sex acts intermediary.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence to the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s facts, the lower court determined in detail the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s facts under the title “determination as to whether the Defendant committed a joint crime” and recognized that the Defendant committed a joint crime. In light of the records of the instant case, G made a statement to the effect that the Defendant’s defense corresponds to the Defendant’s defense even in the court of the first instance, but it is difficult to believe the said statement in light of the content and attitude of the testimony, and the rationality of the content of the statement itself.

The above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. In light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court in the grounds of sentencing and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the record, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or uncomfortable so that it can not be reversed.