성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매강요등)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with labor for a period of three years and six months, and each of the defendants B and C shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for a period of two years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s omission of collection is unlawful, since the Defendants, who omitted collection, could specify the profits derived from sexual traffic.
2) The lower court’s punishment (six years of imprisonment and 80 hours of sexual assault treatment program) against Defendant A is too uncomfortable and unfair.
B. The Defendants’ punishment (five years of imprisonment for each of Defendant B and C) is too unreasonable.
2. In relation to the case No. 2015 high 139, the lower court, ex officio, deemed the Defendants’ coercion of sexual traffic (Article 18(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic) and the acquisition of the price after coercion of sexual traffic (Article 18(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic) as a separate crime, and treated the Defendants as concurrent crimes.
However, Article 18 (2) 1 of the above Act provides that "a person who commits an offense under paragraph (1) (including an unclaimed crime) and receives, demands or promises all or part of the consideration." Thus, an offense under Article 18 (2) 1 of the above Act is established where a person who commits an offense under Article 18 (1) of the above Act has taken place to acquire compensation, etc., and the offense under paragraph (1) of the above Article is not established separately where the offense under paragraph (2) 1 of the above Article is established.
Therefore, each of the above crimes is in substantive concurrent relationship.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of offenses, which affected the judgment.
3. Determination on the assertion of omission of collection
A. The lower court did not impose additional collection on the Defendants on the ground that the criminal proceeds subject to additional collection cannot be specified.
B. Whether the subject of confiscation is subject to confiscation, and the recognition of the amount of collection is not related to the elements of crime composition, so strict certification is not necessary, but also should be acknowledged based on evidence, and if it is impossible to specify the proceeds of crime subject to confiscation, it cannot be collected (Supreme Court Decision 201Da3288, May 1,