The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant C and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. A fine of 6 million won is imposed on Defendant D.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the nature of the crime of this case and the records of the Defendants, the sentence of the lower court (for Defendant A, 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service, confiscation, 1820,00 won additional collection, 3 million won of fine, 5 million won of fine, and 5 million won of fine) is unreasonable.

2. Defendant C did not focus on the degree of participation in the instant crime, but was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution due to the arrangement of commercial sex acts in 2010, and was sentenced to a fine of three million won for aiding and abetting the arrangement of commercial sex acts in 2013, and committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense after having been sentenced to imprisonment due to drinking driving.

Defendant

D was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the crime of indecent act by compulsion, and three years of suspended execution, and the crime of this case was committed during the period of the execution.

Considering these circumstances, the lower court's punishment against the above Defendants is deemed to be somewhat weak.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant A and B, requires respect for the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even in light of the materials submitted at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is unfeasible, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant C and D is with merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal against the defendant A and B is without merit.