The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for three years and five years of suspended execution) by the lower court is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. The lower court determined the sentence within the scope of the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s disadvantage: (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant offenses; (c) the Defendant’s recognition and reflects each of the instant offenses; (d) the victim and his family members do not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent; (d) the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same offense; and (e) the Defendant’s relatives and other family members want to take the Defendant’s preference in the process; and (e) each of the instant offenses is deemed to have a high possibility of criticism by taking the victim’s distorted sexual desire, which requires special protection for sexual self-determination; and (e) the fact that each of the instant offenses appears to have an obstacle to the formation of a sound sexual identity of the victim; and (e) the victim and his family members want to have been punished by mutual consent; and (e) the victim’s relatives and those of the Defendant wanted to take the Defendant’s preference against the

As can be seen, the circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing asserted by the prosecutor as the sentencing factor are already considered in the original court’s determination of the punishment, and there are no new circumstances or special changes that can be reflected in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower court.

In addition, even if the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the various conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant pleadings and records, such as the circumstances after the crime, are comprehensively considered, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too light beyond the discretionary scope.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the judgment of the court below is 5,7,000 children and juveniles against sexual traffic.