Of the judgment of the first instance, the part on the defendant A and the second judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of Defendant A (the total imprisonment of one year, confiscation and collection of 19 million won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The first instance court’s sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor (the Defendant A: imprisonment of 10 months, confiscation and collection of 19 million won, the Defendant B: imprisonment of 6 months, suspended execution of 2 years, probation and community service hours of 80 hours) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the Prosecutor, Defendant A filed an appeal in favor of the lower judgment, and the lower court decided to jointly deliberate on each of the above appeals cases.

However, since each crime of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single punishment should be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, each judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the act of arranging sexual traffic does not have a lot of social harm, such as harming the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing women’s sex, and requires a simple and strict punishment in order to prevent the spread of illegal sexual traffic businesses and to establish a sound sexual culture, and the Defendant’s act of arranging sexual traffic again regulates the business of arranging sexual traffic even after the traffic was controlled once by the police.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case, there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the age and behavior environment of the defendant, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it does not seem that the court below's punishment against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

4. If so, among the judgment below, there is a ground for ex officio destruction against Defendant A.