아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(알선영업행위등)
[Defendant A] The Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed.
[Defendant B] The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed.
The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant B (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
In light of all the circumstances, such as the misunderstanding of the prosecutor’s fact (Defendant B) that the Defendant referred F and L to the effect that “I will introduce a place where the conditions are met” to F and L, that the Defendant would have agreed to distribute profits through the brokerage of commercial sex acts, and that the Defendant actively participated in the intermediation of commercial sex acts against E, etc., even though there is no actual distribution of profits through the brokerage of commercial sex acts, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize that the Defendant was engaged in the business of arranging commercial sex acts in collusion with E, F and L.
However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of engaging in the business of arranging F and L sexual traffic by misunderstanding the fact.
The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence, etc.; Defendant B: 1 year and 6 months of suspended sentence) is too uneased and unfair.
Judgment
The judgment of the court below on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to the defendant B does not seem to have demanded 100,000 won per week for introduction of F and L to E, and it appears that the defendant and E, E, or L have not been explicitly discussed about the payment of the price for introduction of F and L or distribution of profits, and actual E, E, A does not have to pay the defendant the price for commercial sex acts received from F and L, and there is no means to urge the defendant to do so, and the defendant has not been urged, and the defendant has introduced F and L only introduced to E, F and L, and has not been involved in the management of F and L or individual commercial sex acts. In full view of the fact that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to exclude a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in the business of arranging commercial sex acts beyond arranging commercial sex acts temporarily.