Of the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, the part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant S and U in the judgment of the court below in the second and second instances.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ punishments (Defendant A: 1 year and June 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment; 3 months of imprisonment with prison labor; 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor; 6 months in case of Defendant A; 3 million won in case of Defendant B; 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor; Defendant R: Defendant S; 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor; and Defendant U: 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor) are too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced to Defendant A by the first instance trial of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A, and the above Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appealed against the judgment of the court below as to the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals cases.

The crime of the first instance judgment and the second instance judgment against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single sentence should be punished in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the first and second lower judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the remaining Defendants

A. The Defendant S’s crime of this case is a case in which the Defendant’s Defendant S placed juveniles, etc. on a singing room, etc. for profit-making purposes, and mediates them to provide entertainment services. The criminal liability is heavy, and the business period is longer high, and the criminal proceeds resulting from the instant crime also seem to have been considerable.

In particular, the crime is not very good in that the defendant assaults the juvenile, on the ground that the juvenile, does not work at work.

However, it is against the defendant's recognition of his own crime, and there is no record of punishment heavier than that of the same kind of crime or the suspension of execution, in addition to the past punished by a fine twice as a crime of this kind.

The fact that the defendant did not want the punishment of the defendant in consultation with AY and AX as the victim of violence in the trial of the party, is favorable to the defendant.

The above circumstances and conditions.