All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing all the prosecutor’s claims regarding the Defendant M’s case, and the first instance court’s judgment dismissing all the prosecutor’s claims regarding the request for attachment order and the protective observation order.

As to this, Defendant M only appealed, since there was no benefit in the appeal regarding the request for an attachment order and the request for an attachment order, the first judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and only the Defendant case falls under the scope of the trial of this court, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Devices Installation, Etc.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant M against Defendant M (two years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete the program) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court against Defendant A (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, 80 hours, and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 1 year and six months, and 6 months) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The crime of this case committed by Defendant M in collusion with Defendant A and P, thereby soliciting men who wish to engage in sexual traffic, and arranging the purchase of sex to female juveniles who fall short of the ability to distinguish from each other due to the light intellectual disorder, and committing an indecent act by the victim's sexual intercourse over two occasions, and the nature and method of the crime is very poor, and the sexual values were not established properly due to each of the crimes of this case, and it appears that the victim, who was female youth, was sexually sexual intercoursed with Defendant M, due to the occurrence of a sound sexual morality, and caused sexual humiliation, is disadvantageous to Defendant M.

On the other hand, Defendant M recognizes all of the crimes of this case, thereby making his mistake.