Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B’s charge of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. among the facts charged against the Defendant (public prosecutor), the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor sufficiently recognizes the Defendant’s charge of this part of the crime. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A has no record of punishment of the same kind or imprisonment without prison labor or more for Defendant A.

However, in order to eradicate sexual traffic, there is a great need to punish the act of arranging sexual traffic, in particular, the defendant is involved in the operation of a specialized sexual traffic business establishment, and there is no special change in circumstances that determine the punishment differently from the original judgment.

In addition, in full view of the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health status, previous conviction, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is adequate.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion are without merit.

B. As to Defendant B, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the act of arranging commercial sex acts), among the facts charged against Defendant B, on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove otherwise. The lower court acquitted Defendant B of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the act of arranging commercial sex acts).

The circumstances of the court below's reasoning admitted by evidence are as follows: credibility of the court's statement in the court below based on the spirit of substantial direct deliberation.