The judgment below

Among the defendant and the respondent for attachment order, the part of the case of the defendant C and the part of the defendant E, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B’s assertion of the prosecutor’s mistake of the non-guilty portion of the reasons is that Defendant A and B committed sexual traffic in order to cause the victims to engage in sexual traffic, and agreed to accept the request of D to use the victims and agreed to do so. The victims were co-processed with D and E’s act by preventing the victims from being married out of the telecom, and the victims lived with profits obtained through sexual traffic. As such, Defendant A and B’s crime should be deemed to have reached a joint principal offender rather than mere aiding and abetting for crimes D and E.

However, the lower court held that Defendant A and B met the requirements for a joint principal offender, such as functional control, in relation to the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (voluntary coercion, etc.) and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (corporate conduct, etc.).

On the ground that it is difficult to conclude this part of the facts charged, the court found the Defendant guilty only for aiding and abetting each of the above crimes.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Improper Sentencing 1) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant C: 5 years of imprisonment, Defendant D, and E: 4 years of imprisonment) against the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) C, Defendant D, and E is too unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant C, A, and B of the Prosecutor (for each of the three years of imprisonment with prison labor, four years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The part of the defendant case

A. The lower court’s determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts reveals that the Defendants met the requirements of a joint principal offender, such as functional control, in relation to the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (incrimination, etc.) and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (incrimination

Defendant A, on the ground that it is difficult to conclude.