Defendant

The sentence against A shall be six months.

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion, although the size of the business of arranging sexual traffic in this case is large and relatively long-term, the Defendant used the name of general restaurant in receiving entertainment drinking fees, etc. by credit card, and attempted to be punished on the ground of his branch office, despite having been regulating several times, the Defendant continued to operate his business, but there was no criminal history exceeding the punishment and fine for a type of crime similar to that of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not repeat again with his mistake, taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s closure of all businesses related to the brokerage of sexual traffic in this case; and (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, as well as the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence of one year and six months sentenced to the Defendant is somewhat inappropriate.

B. As to the defendant's assertion, although the defendant was sentenced to a fine for a similar type of crime, the defendant is not a person who directly operates an entertainment tavern or has been employed as an employee, the defendant seems to have continued to engage in the business in order to recover the invested money in the Moel of this case, his mistake seems to have been divided in depth, the discontinuance of the Moel of this case, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family character, circumstance before and after the crime, etc., it is recognized that the suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed by the first instance court is too unreasonable (the prosecutor's assertion that the sentencing of the first instance is too unjustifiable).

Defendant

With respect to each of the above defendants' arguments against B, C, and prosecutor, the above defendants did not repeat their errors in depth.