All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B’s assertion that the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of probation, and community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s assertion that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (the Defendant A: 2 years of the suspended sentence of ten months of imprisonment; the Defendant B: the suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment; the community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendants is equivalent to the amount that the Defendants got out from the victim C, and there are many frequency of crimes, the damage to the victim C was not recovered, and the Defendant B did not receive any usage from the said victim, and the fact that the Defendants actively participated in the Defendant A’s criminal act and obtained monetary benefits is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, from the judgment of the court below, Defendant A’s violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Defendant B’s violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Defendant A’s violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Defendant C’s violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Defendant A; Defendant A’s violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Defendant H does not want punishment against Defendant A (Evidence No. 4 right 27 pages of the

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendants, and cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is so unftened.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by Defendant B and the prosecutor is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.