2. Determination

A. Defendant A is against the crime of this case, and the same mistake is not to be avoided again, and family members want to take the action against the above Defendant.

However, the act of arranging sexual traffic is not likely to undermine the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing women's sex, but it is necessary to severely punish sexual traffic business establishments to prevent the spread of illegal sexual traffic business establishments and to establish a sound sexual culture.

In particular, Defendant A committed the instant crime while under the suspension of execution due to the commission of sexual traffic, and the responsibility for the instant crime is important, and Defendant A attempted to conceal the instant crime while doing so as to do so as not to be an unemployment share holder of the instant sexual traffic business establishment, and there is no need for the attitude after committing the crime.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances, including the period of operation and profits of the instant sexual traffic business establishment, Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, the details and details of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant B recognized and reflected the instant crime, and in turn, Defendant B did not commit the same mistake.

In addition, Defendant B has no record of criminal punishment more than the same crime and suspension of qualification.

However, the act of arranging sexual traffic requires strict punishment as seen earlier, and the case where Defendant B invested funds in collusion with Defendant A in order to operate the instant sexual traffic business establishment, and transferred the digital chip of mobile phones opened in his own name to Defendant A.