[Defendant B] All appeals filed by Defendant B and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

[Defendant C] Of the judgment below, Defendant C

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant B: 2 years of imprisonment; Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years and 3 years and 3664 higher order of 2017 to 664) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine both Defendant B and the Prosecutor’s respective arguments regarding the sentencing of Defendant B.

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the circumstances, such as the following: (a) the Defendant is against the law; (b) there is no history of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; and (c) the Defendant’s participation in the criminal act of Bosing is relatively insignificant.

However, the crimes of Bosing are disadvantageous to the victims, such as the fact that there is a need for strict punishment even if the social harm is only part of the crime of very large amount of damage caused by the crime committed systematically, systematically, and artificially against many and unspecified persons, and that it is necessary to reach an agreement with the victims or to recover the damage.

The lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court, since new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the appellate court.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment does not seem to be undue or unreasonable because it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant

B and prosecutor's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

B. We also examine Defendant C and the Prosecutor’s respective arguments regarding sentencing.

Washington, as seen earlier, is done.