beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.05.23 2019노116

성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) Although the lower court did not know of the fact that he was used for the brokerage business of commercial sex acts, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (a fine of five million won against Defendant A, a fine of five million won for Defendant A, a fine of five million won for August and a fine of five million won for Defendant B, a stay of execution for imprisonment, two years for suspended execution, and a community service order of 120

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty of KRW 10,1720,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected Defendant A and B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the following grounds.

According to the evidence of the court below, around January 2007, Defendant B acquired the ownership of the building of this case and entrusted P with the management of the building of this case. Around 2010, H leased the second floor of the building of this case and introduced C to P from early 2013 to early 2014, but the name of the lessee was not changed according to the lease agreement. On March 25, 2016, P entered into a lease agreement with C and E with the lessee on the second floor of the building of this case with the agreement between C and E, and entered into the business related to the above contract on behalf of the Defendant B. The lessor of each lease agreement made with each of the above places was all written as Defendant B. However, P’s statement was inconsistent from the investigative agency to this court on the preparation of each lease agreement, but P was delivered to the lessee of the second floor after commencement of the management of the building of the building of this case until 2017.