성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part concerning Defendant A and B, 2, and 3 of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant .
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant A, B, and C (i.e., imprisonment for 8 months, 2 years of probation, 1 year of probation observation, 120 hours of community service order, 3 through 11, 2 years of probation execution, 3 through 2 years of probation execution, 2 years of imprisonment for each of Defendant B and C), 3 years of sentence sentenced to Defendant B and S (i.e., imprisonment for 4 months, 2 months of imprisonment for Defendant S; 6 months of imprisonment for 6 months), and 3 years of sentence sentenced to Defendant A by the third instance court to Defendant A (a imprisonment for 1 year, 54, 251 won of collection), is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence sentenced to Defendant A by the first instance trial of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, B, and the Prosecutor, the first, and the second, the first, and the second, and the second, the first, and second, the judgment of the court below was rendered on the judgment of the court below, and each of the above Defendants was found guilty, and the prosecutor filed each appeal against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor filed each appeal against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first, the court decided to concurrently examine the above appeal cases.
However, each of the crimes of the 1 and 3 original adjudication against Defendant A and the crimes of the 1 and 2 original adjudication against Defendant B are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one of the crimes should be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment, for which the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes has been imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.
Therefore, each judgment of the court below against the above Defendants was no longer maintained in this respect.
3. In full view of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the following facts: (a) examining the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing by Defendant C; (b) the act of arranging sexual traffic has considerable social harm and harm to the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing the sex; and (c) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court; and (d) considering the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the first instance court’s sentence against Defendant C is not unfair. Therefore, Defendant C’s above position.