2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant is the owner of a house in which sexual traffic is used as a brokerage place, and the Defendant has the same criminal record four times, while there are unfavorable circumstances, such as: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant facts charged; (b) the Defendant’s act, such as arranging sexual traffic in this case, was committed once more than once; (c) the Defendant supports a woman with a second degree disability; (d) the Defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine; and (e) the Defendant has no other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments in this case, such as the Defendant’s character, conduct, environment, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion that the lower court is unreasonable is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.