The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of probation, and 40 hours of order to attend a course) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, where the defendant assisted the business of arranging sexual traffic through the so-called branch office for about nine months, and a relatively long period of time, the defendant's actual business owner who is an offender by doing business as at the time of investigation, and the defendant transferred the means of access to the actual business owner, and the defendant has a criminal record of the same kind of suspended execution.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is the visually disabled person, all of the crimes of this case are committed by the defendant, and is divided, and the fact that the defendant has been actually used by the business owner is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.