The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Defendant .

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the original judgment (one year of imprisonment for each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to take into account the following circumstances: Defendant’s fault against Defendant A’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and there is no record of criminal punishment other than once of fine; Defendant’s disposition of sexual traffic business establishments and work as restaurant employee; and Defendant again did not commit the same crime; Defendant’s family and Matrimonial woman wanted to take the Defendant’s wife against Defendant.

However, the act of arranging sexual traffic has a lot of social harm, such as the commercialization of women's sex and harm to the sound sexual culture and good morals, the defendant has been engaged in the business of arranging sexual traffic for about one year, and the amount of profit therefrom has considerable amount of profit, etc. In addition, all kinds of sentencing conditions such as defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence after the crime, and various sentencing conditions such as the crime, and the range of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court on each of the crimes of this case, and crimes 1 and 2: Types 2, such as sexual traffic crime group, sex trafficking crime subject to 19 years of age or older, sexual traffic brokerage, etc. (mediation of sexual traffic by using high frequency of advertisement or propagation), special persons (a broker using high frequency of advertisement or propagation), decision on the recommended field, scope of recommended sentence (1 year or 3 years): It is not recognized that it is too unreasonable to reverse the sentence to the extent that it can be reversed for more than one year.

3. The act of arranging sexual traffic to determine unfair sentencing by Defendant C is not so much of social harm, such as harming the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing the female sex, and the amount of damage caused by obstruction of exercise of rights was considerable but not agreed with the victim, and the damage was not recovered, and the period and scale of the business of arranging sexual traffic, and the amount of profit.