beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.03.09 2017고단2547

성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 3,00,000 won, and by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 8 months.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2017 Highest 2547]

1. Defendant A is a person who serves as the head of a marina hall with the “E” in heading 210 of the D Building in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.

On June 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) directed the said business establishment to a Jambling room equipped with a betting room in order to receive cash amounting to KRW 80,000 from F, a police officer controlling customers, to perform a similar act; (b) sent female employees G (V, age 46) into the above smuggling room in advance and let the said female employees commit a similar act to stimulate sexual intercourse, such as arranging sexual traffic, from May 2017 to May 201, the Defendant engaged in the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. in the above manner.

2. No person, other than Defendant B inseminator, may open a massage practice establishment.

Although the Defendant is not a massage doctor, from November 19, 2016 to June 16, 2017, the Defendant was equipped with approximately 210 of the D Building 2, approximately 53 square meters in the area of 53 square meters in Sungnam-si, and opened a marina business establishment, which is a place of massage practice for an unspecified number of customers.

[2017 Highest 3057] Defendant C and B jointly operated a friendly place of business, namely, “E” in heading 210 of the D Building in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.

1. Defendants C and B tried to engage in the similarity act by means of a "Handb" method, in order to stimulate male sexual organ by entering the above smuggling, at around September 16:40, 2017, Defendant C and C, the police officer who pretended to be customers, to receive 80,000 won in cash from the crackdown police officer who pretended to be customers and to engage in the act of similarity.

In addition, the Defendants had female employees from November 19, 2016 to the point of time.