Of them, the part on Defendant E shall be reversed.

Defendant

E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

Defendant of the Prosecutor.

A. Defendant E’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against Defendant A, B, and C (Defendant A: 1 year of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 200 hours of community service work and 200 hours of confiscation, 1 year of suspended sentence and 2 years of suspended sentence, Defendant C: one year of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 11,50,000 won of confiscation and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the records, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant E, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and for 2 years of suspended execution for the crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) at the Incheon District Court on August 8, 2014, and the judgment on December 4, 2014 became final and conclusive.

Since the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. and the crime of this case, which became final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, punishment shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity and equity in cases where a concurrent judgment is rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of

3. The act of arranging sexual traffic to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal does not have a significant social harm, such as harming the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing women's sex, and requires good and strict punishment to prevent the spread of illegal sexual traffic business establishments, and to establish a sound sexual culture. The period of the crime in this case is a considerable period of time and the five rooms of officetels are leased, etc., Defendant A and B continue to repeat the crime in the same building even if they were subject to multiple restrictions, and Defendant B again committed the crime in this case even though they were subject to a disposition of fine due to the same kind of crime, etc., which is disadvantageous to Defendant A, B and C.

However, on the other hand, the above defendants were involved.