성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. misunderstanding of facts as to the gist of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding of legal principles (the defendant, when he was investigated by the prosecutor's office, was not engaged in business after the enforcement of control around October 25, 201, and thereafter, since March 2012, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime different from the facts charged in the judgment finalized on October 13, 2012, and thus res judicata of the above final judgment does not affect the facts charged in this case). 2. Where the defendant continues to conduct several acts falling under the name of the same crime or continuous acts falling under the judgment of the court, and the damage law benefits are the same for a certain period under the same criminal intent as a single and continuous crime, each of these acts shall be punished as a comprehensive crime, but where the unity and continuity of the criminal intent is not recognized or the method of the crime is not identical, each of the crimes constitutes a substantive concurrent crime.
(1) In the instant case where the Defendant’s statement made at the prosecution and the statement made at the court of first instance are partly different from each other, in full view of the following: (a) the first instance court took into account: (b) the circumstance that the Defendant continued to engage in the arrangement of commercial sex acts in the same trade name at the same place immediately after October 25, 201, which was put into force on the case finalized by the Defendant; and (c) the facts charged in the instant case were acquitted on the grounds that the Defendant’s act of arranging commercial sex acts was committed in the same manner at the same time; (d) the Defendant’s act of arranging commercial sex acts was committed in the form of a credit card sales from around October 25, 201 to around October 31, 201; and (e) the facts charged in the instant case where the Defendant’s statement made at the court of first instance and the statement made at the court of first instance are deemed to be an element of trial-oriented principle under the Criminal Procedure Act; and (e) the Defendant’s act of arranging, including arranging for commercial sex acts, etc.