beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (unfair sentencing: one year and four months of imprisonment; six months of imprisonment; and one million won of fine: Defendant D) is too unreasonable.
2. The defendants' errors in judgment are divided.
Defendant
B and Defendant D did not have any record of being punished for the same crime, and the above Defendants did not seem to have actively and actively participated in the crime of this case, and they did not seem to have much profits from the crime.
In particular, in the case of Defendant B, only part of the Defendant A's crime was involved and played a limited role, and Defendant D was engaged in advertising, and the content of the crime itself is different from the other Defendants.
However, the act of arranging sexual traffic needs to be strictly punished as a crime of great social harm, such as harming the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing women's sex, and considering the fact that Internet web site, which is a medium with high spreading in promoting the sexual traffic of this case, has been used in promoting the sexual traffic of this case.
Defendant
A and Defendant B made a sales of KRW 47 million for about three months, and Defendant A made a sales of KRW 17 million on its own for about one month, and Defendant A made a sales of KRW 17 million on its own for about one month. The business period and operating profit are significant.
Defendant
A and Defendant B did not know even during the period of repeated crime, but committed the instant crime. Moreover, Defendant A was punished by a fine for the same kind of crime one time during the period of repeated crime, and Defendant A committed the instant crime at the same time.
In full view of such circumstances and the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant pleadings, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable.
3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.