All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing)

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Article 1(a) of the original judgment: 6 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended sentence, 1-B, 2-3 of the original judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below which omitted the sentence of confiscation because the inspection jugno No. 8 (No. 1) was a tool that the defendant actively used for the crime of sexual purchase, and thus, should be confiscated from the defendant.

2. The judgment of the defendant purchased sex or solicited sexual traffic against the victims who are juveniles, and the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the object and circumstances of the crime, and in particular, the crime of buying the sex of juveniles is highly likely to have a serious adverse impact on the juveniles at the stage of establishing their sexual identity and values, and it is necessary to punish them strictly because they encourage them to engage in sexual conduct for money and other valuables, and the defendant committed the crime of Article 1(a) of the judgment of the court below as stated in the judgment of the court below after being prosecuted for sexual crime as stated in the criminal records of the court below, and even after the suspension of execution, he purchased or solicits three children or juveniles to purchase or sell sex.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant fully acknowledges the crime of this case, the fact that the crime of paragraph 1(a) of the judgment of the court below and the crime that became final and conclusive in the criminal records of the judgment of the court below should be considered at the same time, and that one of the victims of sexual purchase has agreed with the court below, etc.

In addition, in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), and other defendant's age, family relationship, and family relationship.