A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years and six months respectively) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor by the lower court to the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The evidence, evidence, rule of evidence, and legal principles of the instant crime are acknowledged. The Defendants, at the time of the instant crime, abused the fact that the victims were sexually adults with C, F, and G, and forced them to take advantage of the fact that they were in difficult condition to be protected by the Act by being able to maintain their livelihood, and thus, there is a significant possibility of criticism as to the motive and background of the instant crime, and five persons including the Defendants jointly committed the instant crime; Defendant B led the instant crime with F; Defendant B was also in charge of the instant crime; Defendant A was also unable to be deemed to have committed the instant crime at the mere same time (the Defendant A was sentenced by imprisonment with labor for a prolonged period of time on August 17, 2015, and was subject to the Defendant B’s phone call, and the victim was forced to take care of, or threatened with, the victims of the instant crime; Defendant B and the victims of the instant crime, who were subject to the victim’s imprisonment with prison labor for a more than six years after committing the instant crime with G and the victim’s money.

On the other hand, the Defendants were aware of the instant crime, and the Defendants were seriously resisted.