All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence (Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspension of execution for two years, and fine for three million won for defendant D) declared by the court below to the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s judgment on Defendant B recognized the instant crime; Defendant B received delivery of the building from a sexual traffic business owner who leased the building offered to the instant crime for the first time in the first instance; Defendant B did not have any history of criminal punishment other than a fine; Defendant B was aged 88 years old; and Defendant B was a person of distinguished service to the State, etc. in favor of Defendant B.

However, even though Defendant B leased the above building to the proprietor of sexual traffic and had the record of criminal punishment in 2011, repeatedly committed the crime of this case under the same veterinary act, Defendant B knew of the character and conduct of sexual traffic in the above building, and did not take any particular measures for a long time. In full view of the fact that the brokerage of sexual traffic in the above building was discovered four times only in 2015, and other various sentencing conditions such as character and conduct, environment, family relationship, equity with the sentence imposed by Defendant B, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The fact that Defendant D’s judgment on Defendant D recognized the instant crime, that Defendant D did not have any record of criminal punishment other than a fine, and that Defendant D’s health is somewhat inappropriate is favorable to Defendant D.

However, Defendant D repeatedly committed the instant crime because it was under criminal punishment of KRW 2 million for the commission of sexual traffic under the same law as the instant case on February 6, 2015. In full view of the following factors: (a) Defendant D’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, equity with the sentence imposed by the accomplices; and (b) the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence is too unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendants' appeal is justified.