성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal - In full view of the fact that the Defendant: (a) found the police station on the day on which the Defendant’s appeal was closed; (b) asserted that he was the owner of the police station; and (c) led the Defendant to the same purport at the time of the police investigation and the prosecution first investigation; (d) made a statement corresponding thereto at the police station; and (c) the Defendant, an accomplice, made a statement corresponding thereto; and (d) paid a difference under the name of her own name after concluding a lease agreement, the Defendant
However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the conspiracy cannot be recognized, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor tried to examine the previous facts charged by the court below, which was found not guilty, and added the following facts to the effect that "the defendant, as stated in the first facts of the crime, allowed the lessee of an officetel used as a commercial sex business establishment to lend the name of the lessee of the officetel used as a commercial sex business establishment to allow him/her to engage in the business of arranging D commercial sex acts," and applied the applicable law for amendment to the indictment, stating "Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act."
This Court permitted this to be tried and changed, and this Court found the Defendant guilty of the conjunctive charges, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as follows.
3. The prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to the acquittal portion of primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the grounds for reversal of authority as above, even though there are grounds for reversal of facts as above.
The court below held against the defendant prepared by the judicial police officer.