성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant is not aware of the fact that there is no conspiracy to commit the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. as stated in the facts charged with A running the instant establishment, which is called “D sports massage site”, and there is no intention to operate the said establishment, nor did he employ F as an employee, nor did the act of arranging sexual traffic have been committed.
B. Although the Defendant denies the facts charged from the court below at the court below, the court below, in proceeding with the Defendant as co-defendant, who is the main owner of the instant business establishment, appointed the same state appointed defense counsel with the Defendant and A, and sentenced them to a judgment. Since the Defendant and A conflict of interest, they cannot select the same state appointed defense counsel with the Defendant and A pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, as they conflict with each other.
Therefore, the court below erred by proceeding proceedings in violation of Article 15(2) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. First of all, we examine whether the lower court’s appointment of the same public defender for the Defendant and A, proceeding with the trial, and rendering the judgment violates Article 15(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.
Article 15(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that "The state appointed defense counsel shall select one person for each accused or suspect: Provided, That if deemed necessary in light of the special nature of the case, one or more state appointed defense counsels may be appointed for the accused or suspect, and Article 15(2) provides that "if the interests of the accused or suspects do not conflict with each other, the same state appointed defense counsel may be appointed for the accused or suspect, the same for the accused or suspect may be appointed for the accused or suspect." Thus, the same interpretation conflicts with each other.