The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle) Defendant A did not arrange for Defendant B to perform the similarity act as stated in the facts charged of this case, and Defendant B did not engage in sexual traffic by means of the similarity act as stated in the facts charged of this case.

A written statement prepared by F as evidence of guilt at the police investigation stage, and a written statement of interrogation of a suspect in F prepared by the police officer that the Defendants in accomplice relation denied or consent to the denial of the contents of the Defendants, which is not admissible as evidence, and the written statement prepared by F at the prosecution investigation stage is not admissible as evidence because the investigative agency did not prepare a written confirmation of the investigation process, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) Defendant A is a person who operates a business establishment with the trade name of “E Maz” in the 206th floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the Dacheon-si Office D.

Defendant

A around August 8, 2016, around 2016, arranged the similarity act that stimulates the above F's sexual organ by receiving KRW 100,000 from F, a customer who found his place at the above marina business place, and Defendant B, a female employee, in his hand.

2) Defendant B, who works as an employee at the above marina shop, was engaged in sexual traffic by means of the similarity that stimulates the sexual organ of customer F in his/her hand at the above marina shop around August 8, 2016.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ partial legal statements; (b) the prosecution interrogation protocol against Defendant B; (c) the police interrogation protocol against Defendant F; and (d) the F’s written statements; and (c) the facts charged against the Defendants.