All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The defendants asserted that the court below's punishment (i.e., one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B's imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order, confiscation, additional collection, three hours of confiscation, additional collection, Defendant C's imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service order, confiscation, additional collection, ④ Defendant D's imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the above sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendants in collusion with their family members or relatives and operated for a long time sexual traffic establishments and received profits therefrom are not good.

In addition, the fact that women working for sexual traffic establishments have extremely poor at the time of the crime, and human life damage has occurred due to accidents that occurred in the course of the business, and that the defendants have been punished for the same crime or suspended indictment is disadvantageous to the defendants.

However, in relation to the profits from the crime, the imposition of confiscation and collection for Defendant A, B, and C is sentenced, the punishment for the same crime was conducted before around 2004 and there is no record of punishment for the same crime. Defendant B has no record of punishment for the same crime except once in 2016. Defendant D has a record of disposition of suspension of indictment for the same crime, but there is no record of other crime, and Defendant D has a record of disposition of suspension of indictment for the same crime, but it has a relatively short period of the period of operation of a sexual traffic business establishment, the defendants are against the other, and the defendants are not re-offending. The fact that the defendants are unable to repeat the crime is favorable to the defendants. The fact that the defendant's child's wife died due to the fire of the relevant sexual traffic business establishment of this case.

The sentencing of the lower court, including the above-mentioned normal relationship, shall be sufficiently assessed against the Defendants and the Prosecutor.