Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

Defendant .

A. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

Before the prosecutor's judgment on the grounds for appeal concerning the prosecutor's unfair judgment on the defendant A's argument of sentencing, it is ex officio.

The term "crimes punishable by imprisonment without prison labor or heavier" under Article 35 (1) of the Criminal Act refers to crimes punishable by imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor, and where a fine selected among the punishments prescribed by the relevant crime is a fine, it shall not be subject to aggravated repeated crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1018, Jul. 27, 1982). Nevertheless, the court below erred by applying Article 35 of the Criminal Act, even though the offender of this case selects a fine among the punishments prescribed by the crime against which the crime is committed, and applied Article 35 of the Criminal Act, and affected the judgment. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A among the judgment below is no longer maintained.

Defendant

We also examine the defendant B and the prosecutor's argument about the improper determination of sentencing against the defendant B and the prosecutor B.

The circumstances favorable to the above defendant B are recognized, such as the fact that the defendant B made a confession of the crime of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, and the fact that it is necessary to consider equity with the case where he was tried together with the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts in the judgment that became final and conclusive.

However, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant B while operating a sexual traffic business establishment, which led Defendant A to make a false confession to an investigation agency, thereby obstructing the State’s proper criminal justice function. In light of the circumstances of the crime and the details of the crime, such as the manual, etc., the criminal liability is heavy. Defendant B continued to arrange sexual traffic even though he had been punished for the same kind of crime in around 2015, and furthermore, the criminal of this case also assisted the victim.