성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below against the defendants on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is unfair because it is too unreasonable to keep the sentence of the court below (the imprisonment of 10 months, confiscation, and confiscation of the defendant A: the imprisonment of 8 months, and confiscation).
2. Determination
A. The scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee is as follows.
[Determination of Type] Commercial sex acts subject to 19 years of age or older
(b) Persons who are in the process of arranging, etc. commercial sex acts [Type 2] and arranging, etc. commercial sex acts (a person subject to special sentencing] due to the receipt, etc. of business consideration: Imprisonment for a long period or organized crime (the scope of recommended punishment] 1 year to 3 years (aggraating area);
B. Under common circumstances with the Defendants, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendants, which is highly harmful to society due to the commercialization of sex and the harm of sound sexual culture and good morals, and the Defendants were actually engaged in the crime of this case as the actual owners in light of their status and roles, such as planning to commit the crime of this case, and actively attempted to conceal the crime. Even after the crime was controlled by the brokerage of sexual traffic of this case, the Defendants attempted to destroy evidence, such as denying the crime and forcing sexual traffic employees to make a false statement, etc., for about 10 months of the period of the crime, about 3,700 times of the crime, the number of the crimes, and about 3,700 times of the business gains, and the number of business gains is not considerably small, and even after the crackdown on August 18, 2017, the Defendants continued to commit the sexual traffic brokerage, which seems to be disadvantageous to the view that the Defendants recognized all their mistakes.
On the other hand, even though Defendant A committed the crime of sexual traffic through the same kind of sexual traffic establishment, the fact that Defendant A left the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the above Defendant, and the fact that Defendant B did not have any record of criminal punishment in addition to the first type of fine, is favorable to the above Defendant.
The sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court are as follows: (a) the conditions for sentencing in the trial, (b) the applicable sentencing, and (c) the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court.