D and Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant A is dismissed in entirety.

A. The Defendant D’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 299,662,00) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (hereinafter “Defendant A”)’s sentence (7 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of forfeiture) of the lower court is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, even though there are many records of punishment for the same kind of crime, the Defendant operated multiple businesses at the same time, and the profits gained therefrom are not significant, and the act of arranging sexual traffic is a crime that has a great social harm and injury, such as the commercialization of women’s sex and harm to the sound sexual culture and good morals, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake is favorable to the defendant, but the court below has already determined the punishment by fully considering the above circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that make the sentence different from the original court at the time of the trial, so the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant D’s assertion is without merit.

B. The prosecutor’s act of mediating sexual traffic in determining the prosecutor’s assertion is a crime that has a great social harm, such as harming the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing women’s gender.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was aware of his mistake, and the Defendant did not have been punished for the same kind of crime; (b) the degree of participation in the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, etc.; and (d) various circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and theories after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal against Defendant A by Defendant D and the prosecutor is without merit, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.