All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (unfair punishment: 10 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended execution; 120 hours of community service, confiscation; 11,042,00 won of confiscation; 11,00 won of confiscation; 2 years of suspended execution; 80 hours of community service, and 2.3 million won of collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendants led to the confession of the instant crime and reflectiveness, Defendant A did not have any record of being punished for the same crime, and Defendant B did not have any record of being punished by a fine or heavier punishment for the same crime.

B. However, Defendant A’s business establishment was set up, equipped with an invasion and a necessary collection device, and operated a brokerage business for sexual traffic closely through the Internet, and Defendant B, by posting an advertisement on the Internet directly, and by informing the Defendant A of the business method, etc., aiding and abetting the crime of Defendant A by means of informing the Defendant A of the business method. The crime’s nature is not good, the act of arranging sexual traffic is a crime that has great social harm, such as the commercialization of women’s sex and impairing the sound sexual culture and good morals, and there is no change of circumstances after the lower judgment was sentenced, and other various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, background, and circumstances after the crime, etc., comprehensively taking into account the above circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, even if considering the above circumstances favorable to the Defendant.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.