beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by C and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C: Unfair sentencing. B.
Prosecutor (Defendant A and B): each of the inappropriate sentencing dates; 2. Determination of this Court
A. As to the Defendant C’s assertion of unfair sentencing, even though there is no criminal power against the Defendant C, and Defendant C does not have the business of a sexual traffic business establishment. However, Defendant C committed the instant sexual traffic arrangement again at another place even though it had been subject to the overall business of a sexual traffic business establishment, in consideration of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the above Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, and risk of recidivism, etc., it is difficult to view that the first instance court’s fine imposed on the Defendant C is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable because it is different from the remaining Defendants. Accordingly, Defendant C’s above argument disputing this point cannot be accepted.
B. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing on the prosecutor's defendant A and B, even though they had been sentenced to a suspended sentence due to a similar crime committed by the defendant A, they committed again the crime of this case. The defendant B resumed the business even after being investigated on the charge of arranging sexual traffic. However, the defendant A had already become final and conclusive for a crime similar to a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act as stated in the judgment of the defendant B, and other various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing such as the defendant A, B's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, and the risk of recidivism, it is difficult to see that the suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court of first instance on the defendant A and B is too uncompared and unfair. Thus, the prosecutor's aforementioned arguments in this regard cannot be accepted.
3. According to the conclusion, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.