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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the Defendants to each punishment (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended execution, one year of surveillance of protection, community service order 120 hours, Defendant B: fine of five million won, and confiscation) is unreasonable.

2. The crime of arranging sexual traffic, such as the instant case, is highly harmful to society, such as undermining the sound sexual culture and good morals; the Defendants made a false statement at an investigative agency to conceal the instant crime; Defendant A was punished by a suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor due to the commission of sexual traffic in the past; Defendant A committed the instant crime of the same kind despite criminal punishment for the suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor due to the commission of sexual traffic in the past; Defendant A also committed the instant crime; and even immediately after the instant crime was controlled, it was disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, it appears that the Defendants recognized the crime of this case in the lower court and the appellate court, and against the mistake, the period of the Defendants’ brokerage business of this case is not relatively long, and the size of the crime of this case and the proceeds of the crime seems not to be relatively significant, in the case of Defendant B, there is no record of criminal punishment for the same crime until now, in the case of Defendant A, the crime of this case and the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as brokerage of sexual traffic, which became final and conclusive on May 23, 2015 (mediation of sexual traffic) should be considered at the same time, taking into account equity in the case of the Defendants’ age, sexual behavior, environment, and family relations, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s each sentence imposed on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

3. In conclusion, since each appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.