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

Defendants 1 and 2 of this title.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the seized mobile phone (No. 3) does not have any relationship with the instant crime, the part of the judgment below which sentenced the forfeiture of the mobile phone is unreasonable. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of fine, five million won of community service, 120 hours of fine, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since there is no evidence to prove that the mobile phone that was confiscated on the part of the forfeiture of Defendant A was used for each of the crimes in this case, the aforementioned mobile phone cannot be deemed subject to forfeiture.

Therefore, this part of Defendant A’s assertion is with merit.

B. The lower court determined on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing: (a) took account of the favorable circumstances such as the Defendants’ criminal liability in light of the method and period of operation of the instant sexual traffic business establishment; and (b) the Defendants had the power to have been punished several times of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendants did not have been punished for the same type of crime; and (d) Defendant B could have been deemed to have been relatively short of the participation period; and (e) the Defendants could have recognized and reflected the commission of the crime; and (e) sentenced the said punishment within the scope of recommendations given by the Sentencing Committee, taking into account the sentencing guidelines of Article 51 of the Criminal Act

As the new sentencing data is not submitted in the trial court, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original court. In full view of various sentencing conditions revealed in the proceedings of the present case, the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the court below is too excessive. Thus, the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Accordingly, Defendant A’s appeal is reasonable.