In the Anti-Prostitution Act, the types of intercourse, as the requisite of prostitution are divided into intercourse & analogous intercourse. To interpretate the legal meaning of analogous intercourse & fix the category relate to arranging the boundary line to punish prostitution. But, in addition to much debate in criminality of prostitution, the nation didn’t clarify the reason of punishing prostitution during the enactment, and the purpose of legislation with the benefit & protection of the law aren’t clear, so it’s difficult to perform statutory interpretation & benefit sentencing. Especially, whether the act of stimulating genitals with hands or feet is analogous intercourse sparked a fierce debate. So, this study intends to inspect on what a basis & standard the Court decided and, as a key point of decision, what a ‘purpose of legislating Anti-Prostitution Act’ is, and to discuss how to judge ‘Criminality of Prostitution’. In the lower court & Supreme Court, they decided analogy mainly based on the degree of men’s sexual satisfaction who purchase sex originated from statutory interpretation of analogous intercourse. However, judging from such a standard, as seen from the different sentences by the lower court, statutory interpretation couldn’t be the practical standard of judging. As the result of examining the reason of judging, in the decision of the Supreme Court, the purpose of law understood as eradication of prostitution through punishment acted as the overwhelming argument. But, the purpose of punishment of a must can’t be the basic legal purpose or reason of being guilty, and it seems that sexual sense or moralism of a judge is reflected in the necessity of such a punishment. The purpose of legislation of the Anti-Prostitution Act should be the human rights protection for ones who sell sex. But, only one decision of not guilty in the lower court was based on the standard of the degree of violation of human rights of women who sell sex.