All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair form of punishment) asserts that the sentencing of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant for three months or more, causing E to make a false statement as if he actually engaged in the act of arranging sexual traffic, and in light of the contents of the crime, the criminal liability of the defendant is not weak.

Furthermore, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 5 million due to a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) around January 201, and sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 1 year on November 4 of the same year and sentenced to a suspended sentence of 3 years on November 12 of the same year, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 30 of the same year, even though he had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years due to a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.). However, even though he had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years on October of the same year, the Defendant

However, it seems that the period of arranging commercial sex acts by the defendant has not been long up to three months and there seems to have been many profits therefrom. Despite the defendant's act of aiding and abetting an offender, it seems that there was no big difficulty in identifying the defendant as the actual business owner. Considering the fact that the defendant misleads the defendant and reflects the defendant, and all other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the court below is deemed reasonable, and it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable.

If so, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.