The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding of the legal principles (the defendant does not engage in business after he/she took control over September 19, 2012, and thereafter newly started business around October 10, 2012, and employed the Chief F to manage the business around October 15, 2012, the facts charged in the instant case fall under a crime separate from the facts charged in the summary order finalized on May 10, 2013, and the res judicata effect of the said final judgment does not extend to the instant facts charged). 2. On May 10, 200, the facts charged in the instant case fall under a crime separate from the facts charged in the summary order that became final and conclusive on May 10, 2013. Various acts falling under the same name of the instant court and continuous acts are committed for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, but if the legal interest of such acts is the same, each of these acts constitutes a single comprehensive crime.

(1) The court of first instance held that the facts charged in this case are acquitted on the ground that the facts charged in the final judgment and the facts charged constitute a blanket crime on September 30, 2005, etc. In light of the records, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the prosecutor’s allegation that the charges in this case are unlawful since it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment or misapprehension of the legal principles as to mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, etc., on the ground that the act of arranging sexual traffic was performed independently and jointly with other persons, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the uniformity and continuity of such crime cannot be severed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13019, Sept. 8, 2011).

3. According to the conclusion, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.