A. The sentence of imprisonment (6 months of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment)’s sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor’s assertion are as follows: (a) the Defendant confessions the instant crime and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment due to the same kind of crime; (c) the Defendant is likely to have been faced with an opportunity to satise and satise the quasi-satisfy of punishment through confinement life for about three months; and (d) the Defendant’s life without re-offending and faithfully lives, etc.

However, this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant arranged the act of similarity for a long period of not less than two months, and the nature of the crime is not good. Such a crime is an act of creating the sex as a customer, and there is a need to strictly punish the harm and danger, such as undermining the sound sexual sense and sexual morals of the general society. The defendant's profits from the crime of this case seems to be considerable, and the defendant actively recruited customers by opening a camera on the Internet and publicizing it, and committed a planned and fatal crime such as installing CCTV at the business place.

Considering the above flexible circumstances as well as all other conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, and the sentencing guidelines of the sentencing guidelines committee, the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate and too heavy or unreasonable, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.