All part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (the first instance judgment against the lower judgment)’s punishment (the imprisonment of 10 months, the additional collection of 3.6 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The first sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: the same shall apply to the lower court’s judgment; Defendant S: imprisonment for eight months of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection, community service, 160 hours, the prevention of sexual traffic by an order to attend a lecture, additional collection of KRW 1.5 million for forty hours) and the second sentence against Defendant A ( imprisonment for a year and six months of probation, three years of probation, three years of probation, three years of probation, community service, 200 hours, 40 hours of order to attend a lecture, and additional collection of KRW 6970,00) is unreasonable.

2. As to the judgment ex officio (limited to Defendant A) on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the Prosecutor, the lower court rendered a separate examination of Defendant A and rendered a judgment of conviction, and then brought an appeal by Defendant A and the Prosecutor, respectively, after which the lower court rendered a separate examination of Defendant A and rendered a separate judgment of conviction, the lower court decided to jointly examine the above appeal cases.

However, each crime of the judgment below 1 and 2 against Defendant A is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act should be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes.

Therefore, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 was no longer maintained in this respect.

3. We examine the reasons for appeal against Defendant S by the prosecutor, compared to the first instance court, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions, and considering the records and arguments of this case, the first instance court’s punishment against Defendant S cannot be deemed unfair. Thus, the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A among the judgment below is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without further proceeding to decide on the unfair argument of sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor.