성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s punishment (a punishment of eight months of imprisonment, a surcharge of KRW 137 million) is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant reflects his/her mistake; (b) the Defendant’s family and branch members desire to take the Defendant’s preference; and (c) the Defendant’s health and economic conditions are not good.
Meanwhile, the crime of this case is a crime that harms the sound sexual culture and good morals by spreading sexual traffic and commercializing sex, and its liability is not weak, the period of the crime is not shorter, and the crime of this case has already been punished several times for the same crime, and the crime of this case is committed during the period of repeated crime, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.
Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant as above, and there is no change in circumstances that can be newly considered in the trial.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, in the application of the statutes of the original judgment, the term “the pertinent Article of the Criminal Procedure Act and the choice of punishment for 1. Criminal facts” is clearly indicated next to “1. Aggravation of repeated crime: Defendant B” and “Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act are omitted.” Thus, Article 25 of the Rules on