2. The judgment of Defendant A and B: (a) set up an officetel by leasing an officetel; (b) arranged commercial sex acts by way of reservation against unspecified men using the Internet website; and (c) Defendant D and A operated commercial sex acts in the course of operating commercial sex acts.

In light of the method and contents of crime, the scale of business, the degree of the Defendants' participation, etc., the crime is heavy.

The brokerage business of sexual traffic is a crime that harms the establishment of a sound sexual culture by commercializing women's sex, and its social bad morals is good, and thus, the defendants' liability is not weak. Although the defendant A has been under the control that he is operating sexual traffic establishments as a business owner, he takes part in the business of commercial sex acts operated by the defendant D and engages in commercial sex acts as an employee in the business of commercial sex acts operated by the defendant D and engages in commercial sex acts, it is more likely to be criticized than the other defendants.

However, the Defendants recognized the crime of this case as an initial offender, and are against their own mistake, and are now going to not repeat the crime while living in good faith.

In the process of arranging sexual traffic, the defendants seems not to have engaged in unfair exploitation, coercion, etc. of sexual traffic, and the period of arranging sexual traffic in this case is not limited, and the amount of profits gained therefrom is not significant.

Although it is reasonable for the prosecutor to concurrently impose a fine under the circumstances in which the defendants' profits from arranging sexual traffic cannot be collected, the court below argued to the effect that it is improper to impose a fine on the defendants. However, the prosecutor's office did not impose a penalty on the defendants for the criminal proceeds obtained by arranging sexual traffic for business purposes.