2. On February 10, 2012, Defendant A was punished by a fine as an act of arranging sexual traffic at the same place as the instant crime, and Defendant B also was punished by a fine on May 8, 2009 by the crime of arranging sexual traffic at the same place as the instant crime, without being aware of the fact that Defendant A committed the instant crime without being aware of the record of punishment as an act of arranging sexual traffic at the same place as the instant case

However, in full view of all the circumstances as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendants’ age, character and environment, occupation, power, process of the instant crime, means and result, etc., the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants shown in the investigative agency, the lower court, and the trial court; (b) the Defendants did not have any criminal records other than fines; (c) Defendant A appears to have committed the instant crime in order to maintain the livelihood of a person who is unable to perform his/her duties due to a lack of eyesight; and (d) Defendant B also said that he/she would not be subject to any further crime while commencing the instant crime immediately after the instant crime was committed; and (c) Defendant B would not be subject to any further crime while performing electrical construction; and (d) the Defendants’ age, character and environment, occupation, power, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime.

3. Accordingly, 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.