All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant A (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the community service time of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The above punishment imposed on Defendant A and each sentence imposed on the rest of the Defendants (Defendant B: 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of probation, observation of protection, community service time 160 hours, Defendant C: 2 million won) are deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Under the judgment on the reasons for appeal, we examine both Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s unfair claims for sentencing.

In light of the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendants, such as the Defendants’ acknowledgement of their criminal acts and the age of the Defendants, etc., and the Defendants, as if they were able to engage in commercial sex acts with minors and victims, and threatened the victims by using them. In addition, considering various circumstances that are disadvantageous to the Defendants, including the motive and background leading up to each offense, the circumstances before and after the commission of the offense, the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, occupation, family relation, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court is too heavy, or the punishment imposed by the Defendants is too excessive, and thus it cannot be deemed unfair, since each of the punishments imposed by the Defendants on the Defendant A and the Prosecutor is too unafford. Thus, each of the unlawful arguments in sentencing committed by the Defendants A and the Prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s appeal are without merit, and all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, even if the Defendants appeared on the first trial date of the lower court and recognized all the facts charged, the lower court did not state the Defendants’ statements as evidence of guilt. To add this, the part of “the summary of evidence” in the judgment of the lower court is separated from the Defendants.