성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants: (b) lent the name of business operator with respect to the instant business establishment to I and J; (c) agreed to be investigated by the investigative agency in the event of a criminal case; and (d) stated to the effect that the instant business establishment was actually operated on March 14, 2013 by the control over the instant business establishment; (b) the Defendants could be deemed to have engaged in arranging commercial sex acts; and (c) even if the primary facts charged are not recognized, the Defendants could be sufficiently recognized to have assisted and abetted the conduct of arranging commercial sex acts by I and J; (d) however, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of all the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on aiding
2. Summary of the facts charged in this case
A. The Defendants: (a) conspired to commit the principal facts charged; (b) had seven studs equipped with shower facilities at the Marina site located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Underground from December 21, 2012 to March 14, 2013 (hereinafter “instant business”); (c) had employees F, G, etc. employed 1.80,00 won from male customers, and had them sexual intercourse with G, etc. with female employees.
B. Preliminary facts charged I and J have seven studios equipped with shower facilities at the instant business establishment from December 21, 2012 to March 14, 2013, with employees F, G, etc., and had them receive 180,000 won from male customers, including H, and had them sexual intercourse with G, etc.
The Defendants knew of the fact that the said I and J act of arranging sexual traffic as above, and, around December 2012, the said I and J lent the registration name of the said I and J to the said I and they agreed to undergo an investigation by the investigative agency as a unemployment, if the Defendants are to regulate the said establishment.