성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) of the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
2. The fact that the defendant was aware of the crime of this case and his mistake is divided is favorable to the defendant.
However, the court below seems to have determined the punishment by fully considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there seems to be no change of circumstances that would be different from the judgment of the court below, and the act of arranging sexual traffic does not have a significant social harm, such as harming the sound sexual culture and good morals by commercializing women's sex, and requires a strict and severe punishment in order to prevent the spread of illegal sexual traffic business establishments, and to establish a sound sexual culture. The crime of this case is committed within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone, and the crime of this case is more bad, and the defendant has already been subject to a disposition of suspension of execution due to the crime of arranging sexual traffic in the same place, even though he had already been subject to a disposition of suspension of execution, it is inevitable to punish him more severe punishment than that of the crime of this case during the grace period, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, happiness environment, and circumstances before and after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, in the judgment of the court below, since the phrase “Evidence 1 through 10 of the seized evidence shall be forfeited from Defendant A” in the disposition of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error, it shall be corrected as follows: “Nos. 1 through 3 of the evidence seized by the seizure protocol dated November 15, 2013; No. 1 through 6 of the seized evidence around November 16, 2013; and No. 1 of the seized evidence around November 18:40 of 2013 shall be confiscated from Defendant A; and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected as follows.”