A. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment for six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, community service hours, the confiscation of 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to prevent the act of arranging commercial sex acts, strict punishment is required; the Defendant leased an officetel and committed the instant crime; in particular, the Defendant again committed the instant crime while having been tried due to the act of committing the same kind of crime; and the Defendant appears to have operated an illegal closure of business, such as a kisc for a long time, in the past, to the disadvantage of the Defendant.

B. Meanwhile, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was committed while committing the instant crime; (b) the Defendant did not have any history of having been sentenced to a higher punishment than the fine; (c) the Defendant’s family support; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and the details of the instant crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and pleadings, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be appropriate; and (d) it does not seem to be too light or unreasonable.

C. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal of this case by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.