2. In light of the fact that the Defendants recognized the instant crime, Defendant B’s participation in the instant crime as an employee of the instant sexual traffic business establishment is relatively weak and there is no record of punishment exceeding the same kind and fine, etc., which are favorable to the Defendants.

However, the act of arranging sexual traffic, such as the crime of this case, does not have a significant social hazard, such as the commercialization of women's sex and the harm to the sound sexual culture and good morals, and it is necessary to punish not only the proprietor operating illegal sexual traffic business establishments, but also the employees involved in the illegal sexual traffic business establishment in order to prevent the spread of the illegal sexual culture, and to establish a sound sexual culture. Defendant D committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the history of punishment for the same crime and during the suspended execution period. Furthermore, Defendant D attempted to conceal the crime and avoid criminal punishment on the ground of the so-called branch office. In full view of various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments such as the records and arguments such as the equality of sentencing with the same or similar cases, the age, family environment of the defendants, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the punishment of the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, the judgment of the court below is clearly erroneous, because it is obvious that it is a clerical error in Article 55 (1) 3 and 6 "Article 55 (1) 3" in the 7th section of the judgment of the court below, and the ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure).