성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)등
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s sentence (a year and eight months of imprisonment and an additional collection of KRW 57 million) is too unreasonable.
B. As to the violation of the Immigration Control Act and the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as the Mediation of Commercial Sex Acts and subordinate statutes, among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant B lent a vehicle to the Defendant A who arranged the employment of a sexual traffic woman, or placed one-time fee in lieu of the employment brokerage fee upon the Defendant A’s request.
In light of such degree of proof, Defendant B should be deemed to have been liable for a crime committed by Defendant A, but Defendant B was a joint principal offender.
In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B) As to the portion of the lower judgment’s additional collection, Defendant B obtained only KRW 2 million to KRW 3 million per month through the crime of arranging sexual traffic in N, but Defendant B received only KRW 7 million per month at the time of Defendant B’s collection.
In light of this, the lower court’s judgment that calculated the additional collection charge of KRW 49 million (=7 million monthly profit x 7 months) is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and eight months of imprisonment and additional collection KRW 64 million) is too unreasonable.
(c)
(1) Prosecutor 1) Regarding the part of the lower judgment’s acquittal and dismissal of public prosecution, the part related to ① the violation of the Immigration Control Act in the instant facts charged with respect to the violation of the Immigration Control Act in D, the accusation by the director of the immigration control office on the Immigration Control Act only indicates the fact to the extent that it can be proven that a certain form of crime under the Immigration Control Act is a crime under the Immigration Control Act. The immigration control office in the instant case provides “C” and “U” operated along with D’s accusation.