2. Determination

A. It is recognized that Defendant A recognized each of the crimes of this case, and reported himself on the crime related to the instant penphone.

However, the defendant made a statement that the defendant has many records of punishment for the crime of the same kind of narcotics, the defendant has been punished for the crime of arranging sexual traffic, and that the crime of arranging sexual traffic in this case was committed against many women over a long time, and that the defendant made a statement at the prosecutor's office that "the amount obtained by deducting the money from Irrrrrrrrrrhs for about 50 million won per year" is about 2-30 million won if he does not bear expenses for about 4 years (Evidence record 530 billion won). (Evidence record), it is difficult to see that the court below collected additional expenses of 200 million won for the crime of arranging sexual traffic, and in full view of the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the above argument by the defendant is too unreasonable since the court below is not justified.

B. It does not seem that there are new circumstances or special changes that can be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of Defendant B and C, and further, even if the lower court comprehensively takes into account the circumstances and various conditions of sentencing indicated in the grounds for sentencing as well as the records, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the above defendants' above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.