beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, B, and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A and B1 do not have any misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant B did not assault the victims, and since the victims have stolen their fingerprints, the victims only have been clicked, but there was no assault against the victims to force sexual traffic. 2) The lower court’s sentencing (three years and six months, respectively) against the Defendants of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (seven million won of fine) against the Defendant C by the Prosecutor is deemed as unfortunate and unfair.
2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and B
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the above defendants asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the original judgment, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail under the title "the judgment on the defendant A, B, and their defense counsel's assertion". In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the defendants' assertion in this part is without merit.
B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, there are extenuating circumstances such as Defendant A and B’s four years of age who shall support under the chain as the 20 married couple, and the agreement with the victim G and the misunderstanding has been divided. However, the crime of this case is very heavy for the defendants to have the victims of 14 years of age and 15 years of age engage in sexual traffic over about 70 days, and to have the victims of 15 years of age acquire compensation, and the nature of the crime is very heavy. In light of the circumstances where Defendant B had the history of having already been suspended of indictment due to the same kind of crime, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant A and Defendant B as well as Defendant B.
3. Furthermore, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants constitutes the lowest sentence of punishment within the scope of discretionary mitigation, and the Defendants’ character, behavior, living environment, and so on.