beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.04.04 2013노325

아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(알선영업행위등)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in finding the guilty of violating Article 12(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse if the crime of this case is punishable as a simple brokerage act under Article 12(2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse by excessively broad interpretation of the elements of the crime under Article 12(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse or by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Under Article 12(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which is a statutory penalty separate from the defendant's act of simple brokerage, is introduced for the expansion and reproduction of child and juvenile sex trafficking and the continuous production of sexual buyers by systematically or on a large scale, to punish them more strictly. Thus, in interpreting "business" as its constituent element, it shall be interpreted strictly only where the above-mentioned level of illegality is recognized in light of the legislative intent and the corresponding statutory penalty, and it shall be interpreted strictly only where the above-mentioned level of illegality is recognized.

shall not be widely recognized.

The defendant, as the principal offender C, received letters from the male who wants to purchase sex, set the place and amount of sexual traffic, and received a little amount of money to inform the juvenile who wants to engage in sexual traffic, and he has retired for 40 days, and he voluntarily retired. The judgment below which recognized the defendant as a joint principal offender of the act of arranging sexual traffic by deeming that the defendant was "the act of arranging sexual traffic" as "the act of arranging sexual traffic", is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the act of arranging sexual traffic,

dr.