All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment, and forty hours of order to complete a sexual traffic prevention program) of the judgment below is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment appears to be contrary to the Defendants’ mistake, the primary offender who had no record of punishment prior to the instant case by Defendant A, Defendant B has no criminal record exceeding the punishment or fine for the same kind of crime, and female juveniles who have engaged in sexual traffic through the intermediation of the Defendants were in the Defendant’s preference in the trial, etc. are recognized as favorable circumstances for the Defendants.

However, among the crimes of this case, the act of mediating juveniles to become the counter-party to sexual traffic is very bad in quality of the crime, such as that it adversely affects the formation of the proper sexual identity and values of juveniles, and the court below seems to have sentenced the punishment within the range of the recommended sentence set by the sentencing guidelines (from August to November of imprisonment, and from August to June of imprisonment, from August to June) considering the various circumstances of the defendants, and taking into account other various sentencing conditions that are shown in the records and arguments such as the defendants' age and behavior environment, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

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