Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendant B’s Defendant first committed a crime against his wrong, and that the above Defendant was merely an employee, the sentence of the lower court (1.5 million won) against the above Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (five million won in penalty) against Defendant A of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Although Defendant B did not have any particular criminal history regarding Defendant B’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the above Defendant appeared to have committed an act against his own mistake, the above Defendant was working for about five months as an employee at the instant business establishment, and the period of service is not shorter than that of the Defendant. The crime of this case is detrimental to the sound morals, and the nature of the crime is not good, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., are considered to be too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant A operated a commercial sex business establishment in an educational environment protection zone, the above Defendant’s employment of a foreign woman who is socially disadvantaged class and arranged commercial sex acts, the above Defendant appears to have violated his/her own mistake and closed down the instant business, and the above Defendant did not have any particular criminal history, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, including the age, sex, and environment of the above Defendant, are considered as being too unjustifiable, and thus, it is not recognized that the above Defendant’s punishment against the above Defendant is undue.

3. The appeal of this case by Defendant B and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.