2. Although the Defendants recognized their mistake, Defendant A did not only employ juveniles on the multiple occasions and let them deliver coffees, etc. to singing practice rooms, but also had the ability to be punished for the same kind of crime by arranging sexual traffic to many female employees, and Defendant B also did not have an easy degree of participation in the crime by taking into account the circumstances leading up to each of the crimes of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, and environment, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the following: (a) the punishment of the lower court is too unreasonable; and (b) the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

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

[However, in the context of the application of the law of the court below, it is obvious that the "Juvenile Protection Act" stated in the part of "the pertinent provision of the Act on Criminal Facts" is a clerical error in the "former Juvenile Protection Act (amended by Act No. 11048, Sep. 15, 201)", and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation