The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

(b) the defendant;

1. As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s request regarding the part regarding which the request for attachment order was filed.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the case of attachment order does not have a benefit of appeal.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the application for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to

2. The sentencing of the lower court on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

3. In contact with the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) two victims sent out of Korea, who got into Gwangju, mediated commercial sex acts by one of them; (b) committed indecent act against the said victims; and (c) committed indecent act against one adult victim again while being investigated as a result of these crimes.

The Defendant, prior to the establishment of sexual values, committed several indecent acts against children and juveniles, and the victims seem to have caused considerable sexual humiliation due to the instant crime.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected.

As the defendant agreed with the victim C in this court, all three victims do not want the punishment of the defendant.

The crime of arranging sexual traffic in this case is not planned in advance, but it results in one-time mediation at the victim's request.

The defendant has not had criminal records of sex crimes and criminal records exceeding fines, and has received medical treatment from the year 2015 to the aftermath of the lack of due diligence.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the lower court each of the instant cases.