All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, 1 year of probation, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, 80 hours of seizure, 1, 6 and 13 of each confiscated evidence, Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor, 8 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service order) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as an unfavorable element for sentencing in the trial of the court below were mostly revealed in the oral proceedings of the court below, and there was no change of circumstances unfavorable to the matters subject to sentencing after the sentence of the court below was rendered.

In order to arrange or aid commercial sex acts and conceal the crimes, the crimes of this case committed by aiding and abetting the criminal escape or attempting to escape the crimes are not good, and the scale and duration of the business of arranging commercial sex acts was considerable, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendants.