성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principles, Defendant B’s act does not constitute a crime of aiding and abetting a criminal, since Defendant D’s act did not amount to the degree that it was difficult or impossible to detect or arrest the criminal by actively entering the investigative agency and making it difficult for Defendant B’s act fall under the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal, even if Defendant D’s act did not constitute a crime of aiding and abetting a criminal.
B. The sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, confiscation, Defendant B’s imprisonment for 1 year and 80 million won, Defendant C’s imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and Defendant C’s imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below: ① When Defendant B was subject to investigation by undergoing the control of the instant sexual traffic business establishment, Defendant B called “A would be simple completion,” and promised to substitute a fine (Article 439, 441, 610 of the investigation record). ② The police investigation called Defendant B as the owner of the instant sexual traffic business establishment; ② The police investigation called Defendant B as the owner of the instant sexual traffic business establishment; the operation method including the operation process of the instant sexual traffic business establishment; the details and contents of the agreement to lease the room used for the sexual traffic brokerage business; and the method of paying wages; and the method of paying rent; etc. (hereinafter the investigation record No. 218 of the investigation record); and the investigation agency’s false statement made a considerable concrete and active statement on the ground that it is difficult to find or arrest Defendant B, which is the actual owner of the instant business; and thus, the court below’s judgment is justified in its determination.