All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, two years of probation, 40 hours of community service order, 40 hours of community service order, 40 hours of order to prevent sexual traffic brokerage, Defendant B: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 40 hours of community service order, 40 hours of attendance order to prevent sexual traffic brokerage, 40 hours of collection, 9 million won of collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendants recognized all their criminal acts, the Defendants did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine, and the period during which the instant establishment was operated seems not to have lapsed, and the Defendants would not again commit the same kind of crime.

It is favorable to the Defendants.

However, the act of arranging sexual traffic has a lot of social malicious behavior, such as commercialization of sex and harm to the sound sexual culture and good morals, and there is a need to be strict punishment. Defendant A was sentenced to a fine on the same kind of crime on June 7, 2016 and was under control for the crime of this case. Defendant B led the crime as the business owner of the business establishment of this case. In full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, including the Defendants’ age, sex behavior, home environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to see that the sentencing of the court below is unfair because the sentencing of the Defendants is too excessive. The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.