성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
The judgment below
Part 2 of the Decision (2014 Highest 4099) shall be reversed.
As to the second crime in the judgment of the court below.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first crime in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and the second crime in the holding: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, confiscation and collection) of the lower court is too unreasonable; and
2. Determination
A. A. On March 18, 2014, the act of arranging sexual traffic (the first crime in its original judgment) committed an act of arranging sexual traffic by commercializing the female sex and undermining the sound sexual culture and good morals, etc. The Defendant committed the act of arranging sexual traffic by leasing an officetel newly among the attempts to be prosecuted and tried around 2013 with the commission of the act of arranging sexual traffic using an officetel, and the Defendant committed this part of the crime. The Defendant had a criminal record of a fine for the same kind of crime to the Defendant at the time of the crime in this part, and taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, the environment, the background and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, even if considering the equity between the Defendant’s mistake and the case where the judgment of the lower court became final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed unfair for the lower court’s punishment that sentenced six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.
B. From May 23, 2014 to July 29, 2014, the Defendant was indicted for committing the act of arranging sexual traffic around 2013 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on March 27, 2014, as the Defendant began to commit another part of the crime, and thus, the Defendant requires a strict punishment against the Defendant. However, taking into account the Defendant’s personal fault and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence of one year and six months is somewhat unreasonable.
3. Thus, the defendant's appeal on the part of the first crime which sentenced six months of imprisonment among the judgment of the court below is without merit. Thus, Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.