All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the Defendants to the punishment (one million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the Defendants recognized and reflected the instant crime, Defendant A was the first offender with no criminal history, Defendant B had no criminal record exceeding the fine, and Defendant B did not have any criminal record, and the frequency of the Defendants’ brokerage of commercial sex acts and the fact that the Defendants did not have much profits from committing the crime.

However, it is necessary to strictly punish sexual traffic brokerage activities as crimes with great social harm, such as commercialization of women's sex and harm to the sound sexual culture and good morals. In particular, considering that smartphone hosting events, which are media with high radio wave in the publicity of the instant sexual traffic brokerage business, have been used, it is also recognized as such.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the court below after the judgment of the court below, each sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.