2. The crime of this case requires strict punishment against the Defendants in light of the following: (a) the Defendants committed the crime of this case jointly and severally by force against the victims L, etc. or by force withdrawal; and (b) the Defendants C’ act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. is not good.

However, the defendants divided their mistakes, Defendant A and C did not have the same criminal record, Defendant B was the first offender, Defendant A and B agreed with the victim I, Defendant A and the community service order was imposed together with the suspended execution of imprisonment, the conditions of sentencing are not changed compared with the original judgment, and the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, taking into account the Defendants’ age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unfasible, and thus, the prosecutor’s allegation above is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.