성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendants both recognize the facts charged in this case and repented in depth, the actual period of business is a short-term period not exceeding two months, the profits earned by Defendant A as a result of the crime in this case are extremely small amount if they deducted fees, etc., and Defendant B’s attempted to engage in the business of Defendant D, which is the crime in this case, is not only several times, and the degree of participation in the crime is minor, and Defendant B has no specific criminal power except for the punishment imposed on two occasions, it is unfair to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 300,000 won of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 300,000 won of imprisonment, 8 years of suspended sentence and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. The defendants recognized the crime of this case as well as the depth of the crime, and there are no specific criminal records other than Defendant B’s two fines, etc. in favor of sentencing.
However, Defendant A is mainly in charge of the operation of Defendant A, and Defendant B was in charge of the business only at the time of the absence of Defendant A. However, the above D cannot be deemed to have been involved in the business because the time was less than the time when Defendant B, a married couple, operated together with the Defendants at the place of business. The period of the instant charge is from December 12, 2013 to December 2, 2013, but the Defendants’ actual operation of the said D was for about two months (45 pages of evidence record) but it appears that from April 2013 to the point that the actual operation of the said D would not amount to a considerable amount of profit (Evidence record). In light of the nature of the instant crime, the nature of the instant crime, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is unreasonable to deem the sentence imposed by the lower court to the extent that it should be reversed.
The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is groundless.