All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts (not guilty part) cannot be deemed as having a relationship with the Defendants in light of the age difference and the circumstances leading up to their mutual knowledge, Defendant A has been engaged in commercial sex acts for a long time while providing Defendant C with accommodation places and phiphones, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it appears that the Defendants had sexual intercourses with the Defendants at least after around 2018, and that it was difficult to view that the place of accommodation and the philophones were paid in return for sexual intercourses.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing (the part on the charge of oil) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged while sufficiently explaining the grounds for determination of the assertion of mistake of facts.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that it is difficult to view that the Defendants sent accommodation place and philophones as a price for sexual intercourse at least after around 2018 and the Defendants paid accommodation and philophones among them.

The evidence presented by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, so this part of the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misconception of facts.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

B. If there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). As to the Defendants, this Court did not submit new sentencing data to the Defendants, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court.