The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor, six years, and forty-hour orders for sexual assault treatment programs) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant shows the attitude that all of the crimes of this case are recognized and divided, and the defendant agreed with U.S. for the larceny crime. Each of the crimes of this case is a special larceny of the first head as stated in the judgment of the court below and a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and there is a need to consider equity in the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time.

However, each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant using her age juveniles, who are female juveniles under 13 years of age, committed commercial sex acts for a long time, committed commercial sex acts to the victim H, who is female juveniles under 13 years of age, committed violence in the process thereof, and found the victim from the escape, and committed commercial sex acts to the victim M, who is female juvenile with intellectual disability, and committed commercial sex acts to multiple times against many victims, and committed commercial sex acts, such as conflict, assault, theft, fraud, fraud, and violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, which are highly serious in the light of the contents of the crime. Furthermore, the defendant committed the same act as the larceny of this case while being tried due to special larceny, violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury), violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc.

As a result, even though victims of sex offenses against children and juveniles were deemed to have suffered heavy mental or physical pain and shock, there is no particular measure to recover damage, and they did not receive any remedy separately from the victims, and even though the victims were agreed with U.S. for the larceny crime, it seems that the actual recovery of damage was not achieved, the defendant is liable for such crime.