성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the Defendant had engaged in the arrangement of commercial sex acts from March 26, 2014 to March 28, 2014, the control date.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant not guilty of the charge of arranging sexual traffic on or around March 26, 2014 and around March 27, 2014.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. According to the record as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant consistently stated that ① from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the Defendant prepared a business by leasing a business establishment from March 26, 2014 to the point of view of sexual traffic and interview with women through Internet recruitment advertisement, etc., ② The Defendant consistently stated that, around March 28, 2014, sexual traffic was first compelled to work at the investigative agency around March 20:00, it corresponds to the Defendant’s statement by stating that, (i) sexual traffic was first worked at the investigative agency around March 28, 2014; (ii) the 'licensed real estate agent’ stated in the investigation report (the authentic copy of the lease contract and the attached letter of lease agreement) was the lessee’s commencement of business from March 26, 2014.
In full view of the fact that the statement to the purport that "" is merely a part of the J's statements and it is difficult to reliable, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant engaged in arranging commercial sex acts for business around March 26, 2014 and around March 27, 2014, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the court below's decision to be not guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and the prosecutor's allegation of misconception of facts
B. Regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing