All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant A merely transferred the instant establishment to B after the completion of the interior work by leasing the instant establishment, and did not operate the instant establishment in collusion with B, and did not introduce or employ K, L, etc. only by introducing the J to B.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the arrangement of commercial sex acts, violation of the Medical Service Act with K, L, and violation of the Immigration Control Act in the facts charged of this case is erroneous or erroneous.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C only lent his name at the request of Defendant C, but only operated the instant business establishment or conspired to commit the instant crime, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the instant facts charged, in so determining, is erroneous of misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. (1) Article 19(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. provides for the punishment of a person who arranges sexual traffic, and Article 19(2)1 of the same Act provides for the aggravated punishment of a person who arranges sexual traffic for business purposes.

Here, it is not necessary to arrange commercial sex acts for the main purpose of commercial sex acts, but it means arranging commercial sex acts continuously and repeatedly for commercial purpose by running a business related to commercial sex acts or accompanying such business activities, and managing and operating commercial sex acts for the purpose of economic effects of the business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12275 Decided September 10, 2015). Joint principal offenders under Article 30 of the Criminal Act are jointly committed by two or more persons.