성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.
Defendant .
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, confiscation, additional collection of 43090,00 won, Defendant B: imprisonment of ten months, suspended execution of three years, community service work 160 hours, Defendant C: imprisonment of six months, suspended execution of two years, and community service 80 hours) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of the chief of sentencing officer against Defendant A, Defendant A is aware of the entirety of each of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake in depth.
However, the above defendant is not short of the period for arranging sexual traffic, and there is a history of punishment for the same crime against the above defendant.
In addition, examining various circumstances, which form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the background, means, age, sexual conduct, environment, etc. of each of the crimes of this case, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unfair, and thus, the above Defendant and the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.
B. Defendant B’s assertion of the chief of the sentencing division on Defendant B’s charge of the instant crime is recognized, and thus his mistake is in profoundly against the above Defendant, the circumstances favorable to the above Defendant. The fact that Defendant B had the same record of committing the instant crime, and that the amount of the funds provided to Defendant B with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant B was provided for sexual traffic reaches a considerable amount, etc.
In addition, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and when comprehensively considering the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the above defendant's punishment against the above defendant is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the above defendant's and prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing are without merit.
(c)
Defendant
This paper argues that both parties on C's unfair sentencing.