The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A is punished by a fine of six million won for fraud.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A’s sentence (the first instance court: the second instance court; the second instance court: the suspended sentence of two years; the community service; the lecture course; the third instance court; the imprisonment of six months; the confiscation; the fourth instance court; the fourth instance court); the Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, the sentence of the second, third, and fourth is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant I asserts that Defendant I’s imprisonment (two years of probation, community service, and education of sexual traffic prevention and additional collection for ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, while the Defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable, the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio with respect to Defendant A, this Court decided to hold a joint hearing by examining the appeal cases against the judgment of the court below. Each of the crimes in the first, second and third and fourth judgments against the Defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single punishment within the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A, the fact that the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, it is disadvantageous to the defendant that the defendant was punished seven times as a pro rata crime, that the foreigner was employed to engage in sexual traffic, and that the defendant instigated the escape of the criminal without being limited to the arrangement of sexual traffic.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is within the appropriate scope of sentencing, and it is not determined that it is unreasonable because it is too hot or hot.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. Conclusion, among the judgment below.