특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(영리약취ㆍ유인등)등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on inducement for profit through insufficient deliberation in relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, or by misapprehending the legal principles on inducement for profit.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
B. (1) As to the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. in this case by misapprehending the legal principles, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that there is no evidence other than the confession statement of the defendant, and there is no other evidence.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The judgment of the court below in relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the Defendant refers to the act of inducing the Defendant to leave from the free living relationship or the protection relationship with the latter by deceiving or cruel means and moving the latter to the latter under the factual control of himself or a third party. As to whether there was such an act, the court below stated that ① the victim R reversed the statement in the court of the court below, ② the investigative agency made a statement to the effect that the victim V was damaged by verbal abuse, assault, confinement, etc. from the Defendant, but the court of the court below stated to the effect that the victim V was killed by verbal abuse, assault, and confinement, etc. from the Defendant, but ③ the victim U, K, and G did not have made a statement to the investigative agency of the said victims present at the court as a witness, and thus the prosecution did not have admissibility of the statement, and the evidence that the victim was present at the court alone was under the control of the Defendant.