성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
All appeals filed by prosecutors, Defendant B, and Defendant C are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B (1) The lower court collected KRW 15,305,000 as to Defendant B, by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.
In this regard, from April 29, 2015 to May 19, 2015, Defendant B operated a sexual traffic business establishment jointly with Defendant A and D, a co-defendant. During the foregoing period, the share in the same business operation related to the operation of a sexual traffic business establishment was 50% in total with Defendant B and Co-Defendant D, and 50% in common.
Therefore, when calculating the amount of profit and the amount of additional collection from the crime of this case in consideration of the above operating period and equity shares, the amount of additional collection against Defendant B shall be KRW 11,817,500, and the lower court calculated the amount of additional collection of KRW 15,305,00 as to Defendant B. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts about the additional collection charge or by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of additional collection charge, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 15,305,00) is too unreasonable.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant C (a prison term of eight months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.
(c)
The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment; 2 years of probation; 120 hours of community service order; 15,305,00 won of community service order; 15,305,00 won of imprisonment; confiscation; 15,305,00 won of confiscation; 8 months of imprisonment; confiscation; 2 months of suspended sentence; 3 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended sentence; observation of protection; 160 hours of community service order; 3,150,00 won of additional collection) are too uneasible.
2. The reasoning of the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendant A is that Defendant A participated in the operation of a commercial entertainment business establishment conducted by multiple officetelss; that the profits from commercial sex acts are deposited into the account in the name of Defendant A and it appears that Defendant A managed the profits therefrom; that the period of operation of the commercial sex acts business establishment in this case is short; and that the profits therefrom are not considerable, etc. are disadvantageous to Defendant A.
(b).