아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(알선영업행위등)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The sentence (the defendant A, the defendant B, and the defendant 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor) of the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A, who recognized all of the instant crimes, reflects the depth of the instant crimes.
The above defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant in consultation with the victim F (F, 15 years of age).
The above defendants are punished for the same kind of crime, or have no record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment.
The above defendant's profits from the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Good Offices, etc.) are not high.
However, the crime of this case is very likely to commit the crime of this case in collusion with Defendant B, etc. to arrange the act of purchasing sex of F, who is a child or juvenile, to not engage in sexual traffic any longer, and to detain the defective victim for about 19 hours, and to threaten the victim by avoiding the defendants in collaboration with Defendant B.
In particular, the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse is highly likely to be criticized because the sexual values are not established properly, and the female juveniles with weak economic basis are used as the means of pursuing economic benefits.
Defendant
A seems to play a leading role, such as managing cash received in return for sexual traffic.
In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the lower limit of the applicable sentencing standard, the circumstances where the lower limit of the applicable sentencing standard in law was three years and six months, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, etc., the sentence that the lower court sentenced Defendant A cannot be deemed unfair because
Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.
B. As to Defendant B, Defendant B was aware of all of the instant crimes, and thus, Defendant B is in depth against its depth.
The above defendants are the same.