△△△ 업주인바, 누구든지 성매매알선 등 행위를 하여서는 아니됨에도, 이용원 면적 약 30평에 칸막이가 설치된 의자 7개를 갖추고 성매매녀인 ▽▽▽ 등을 고용하여 성매매장소를 제공하고, 성매매녀들로부터 그녀들이 성매매대가로 받은 돈 60, 000원 내지 70, 000원 중 성매매녀들의 몫인 30, 000원을 제외한 나머지를 받기로 하고 , 2005. 10. 16. 05 : 35경 ▽▽▽이 ▲▲▲으로부터 성매매대가로 60, 000원을 받고 위 의자에서 손으로 ▲▲▲의 전신을 마사지 한 후 성기를 잡고 흔들어 사정하게 하는 등 유사성교행위를 하도록 장소를 제공한 것을 비롯하여, 2004. 9. 23. 경부터 위 일시경까지 ▽▽▽ 등 성매매녀들이 위와 같은 방식으로 성매매를 하도록 성매매장소를 제공하여 영업으로 성매매알선 등 행위를 하고, 성매매녀들로부터 그녀들이 성매매대가로 받은 돈 합계 23, 400, 000원 중 11, 700, 000원 상당을 취득하였다 .

Judgment

1. Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that an act of arranging commercial sex acts, etc. shall be punished, and Article 2(1)1 of the same Act provides that the term "commercial sex acts" means acts falling under any of the following items or acts as the other party to such acts, in return for allowing and promising an unspecified person to receive money, valuables and other property benefits:

2. As such, the law does not have any formula with regard to the meaning of “the act of similarity intercourse” except for the case where the defendant's act of this case engaged in the business is a similar sexual intercourse as provided by the law.

3. The interpretation of penal provisions must be strict, and the interpretation or analogical interpretation of the meaning of penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is not permitted as it is contrary to the principle of no punishment without the law. In addition, the imposition of punishment on a crime is intended to maintain the order of social life. Therefore, the maintenance of order in social life should choose if there is an autonomous method, and penal provisions should be used complementaryly as the last means.

4. 법은, “ 구강 · 항문 등 신체의 일부 또는 도구를 이용한 유사성교행위 ” 라고 하고 있으므로, 여기서의 유사성교행위란, 구강 · 항문 등 신체 내부로의 삽입행위 내지는 적어도 성교와 유사한 것으로 볼 수 있는 정도의 성적 만족을 얻기 위한 신체접촉행위를 의미하는 것으로 해석함이 상당하다고 보이는 점 ( 대법원 2004. 2. 13 . 선고 2003도4362 판결 참조 ), 제한적으로 해석하지 아니할 경우 대가관계가 수반된 성적 만족을 얻기 위한 모든 신체 접촉행위가 유사성교행위에 해당하게 되어 처벌의 범위가 지나치게 확장될 가능성이 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 손을 이용한 피고인의 이 사건 행위는 도덕적 비난가능성은 있을지언정 법이 정하고 있는 유사성교 행위에는 해당하지 아니한다고 보아야 할 것이다 ( 법이 신체의 일부나 도구를 이용하는 경우까지 포함하고 있다고 하여 손으로 성기를 감싸 쥔 채 상하로 왕복운동함으로써 성기를 자극시켜 사정에 이르게 하는 이 사건과 같은 성적 만족 행위를 성교와 유사한 것으로 볼 수는 없다. ) .

5. Meanwhile, the Act aims to eradicate sexual traffic, acts of arranging sexual traffic and human trafficking for the purpose of sexual traffic, and protect the human rights of the victims of sexual traffic. The Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (hereinafter referred to as the "Juvenile Protection Act") provides that "the purpose of protecting juveniles from the act of causing sexual traffic or arranging sexual traffic is to protect juveniles from the act of arranging sexual traffic," and only the object is juveniles, and the purpose of preventing sexual traffic is to prevent sexual traffic, such as the Act. Accordingly, the Juvenile Protection Act also provides that "the sexual intercourse with juveniles" is subject to sexual intercourse with juveniles under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act, and "the act of protecting juveniles by using parts of body or implements, such as the mouth and anus with juveniles."

However, the Juvenile Protection Act was amended by Act No. 7801 on December 29, 2005, and Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act added a self-defensive act in addition to the act of sexual intercourse that is similar to that of the previous sexual intercourse by stipulating that “A. sexual intercourse b. the act of exposing all or part of the body, such as the mouth and anus, is the act of exposing the whole or part of body, and that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to ordinary people.” This amendment is limited to “the act of sexual intercourse” under the premise of inserting the type of the act of purchasing the sex of juveniles, and there is a limit that it is not possible to regulate the sexual exploitation of the juveniles that did not include the inserted act, from the reflective consideration of “the National Assembly, the Committee on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse Act, the report on the examination of the amendment of the Act on Dec. 2, 2005.”

In addition to that which is the object of protection, if the law and the legislative intent of the Act are the same as above, the law is not amended, but it is reasonable to interpret the same provision as the Juvenile Protection Act in that it is desirable to interpret the same.

6. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where the facts charged do not constitute the elements of a crime under the Act, and thus, the facts charged in this case are not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.