A. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of 10 months, additional collection of 18.8 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant is too unhued and unfair.

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, we examine the unfair argument about the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor, such as: (a) the fact that the defendant acknowledges all of the crimes in this case and reflects his mistake; (b) sexual traffic arranging acts interfere with the sound sexual morals and sexual morals of society; (c) the punishment history of the defendant is two times; and (d) the crime in this case is under the period of probation due to the same kind of crime; (c) the defendant led the defendant to the crime in this case; and (d) the defendant is not considered to be jointly engaged in the defendant's business for the purpose of hiding his criminal facts in the course of investigation; and (d) the circumstances and circumstances of the defendant's sexual and family relation.

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