The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for four years, Defendant B and C shall be punished.

Defendant A’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the grounds of appeal reveals that Defendant A had arranged the victim’s prostitution from July 21, 2015 to August 5, 2015. However, in light of the period, circumstances, degree of involvement, etc., Defendant A engaged in the brokerage of juvenile prostitution.

not be deemed to be the case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Good Offices, etc.) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (five years of imprisonment, 120 hours of order, etc.) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant B (five years of imprisonment, 120 hours of order, etc.) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

misunderstanding the C legal doctrine, Defendant C had the victim T become the other party to the purchase of sex, but the victim T's purchase of sex was known.

As such, Article 14(1)4 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall apply only, and Article 15(1)2 of the same Act shall not apply.

B. In light of the period, circumstances, degree of involvement, etc. of the crime, Defendant C: (a) induced or solicits a “business” juvenile sexual traffic; or (b) mediates a “business” juvenile sexual traffic.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged against Defendant C, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (trade conduct, etc.). In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant C (4 years and six months of imprisonment, 80 hours of order, etc.) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D, Defendant D, and E have committed an act of purchasing the sex of AC, but AC.