All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (the imprisonment of two years and six months, the order to complete sexual assault treatment lectures of 80 hours, the additional collection of KRW 1,141,66) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (the imprisonment of three years and six months, the order to complete sexual assault treatment lectures of 80 hours, the additional collection of KRW 1,141,66) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, additional collection 756,66 won) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the difference from the appellate court’s opinion is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) ordered the Defendants to recognize and reflect the crimes in this case; (b) forced the victims to take advantage of sexual trafficking and sexual traffic; and (c) forced the victims to pay a considerable amount of sexual traffic once by taking advantage.