All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the prosecutor appealed from each of the above punishments on the grounds that the court below's respective punishments (six months of imprisonment: Defendant A; Defendant B; 10 months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable and unfair.

2. The judgment of the Defendants continued to engage in the conduct of arranging sexual traffic even after the crackdowns on the scale of the business establishment operated by the Defendants, Defendant B actively attempted to conceal crimes, and Defendant A also attempted to do so, resulting in confusion in the investigation of the instant crime. Defendant A committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, and Defendant B committed the same kind of criminal record against Defendant B, etc. are elements for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendants.

Defendant

A The period of participation in the act of arranging sexual traffic is about four months and only the salary determined during that period has been paid to the same defendant, there is no criminal conviction for the same defendant, defendant B's late later, reflects his mistake, and closes the same business, and there is no criminal history above the suspension of execution.

In full view of all of the above sentencing factors, it is not recognized that the above punishment imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, "B" as stated in "the pertinent provision of criminal facts" in the column of application of the judgment of the court below ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the same year from March 2014)

6. Change to that by up to 25.

.