beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.10.21 2020노127

성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매광고)등

Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In full view of the evidence, such as the defendant's prosecutor's statement, remittance details, L's testimony, etc., it can be acknowledged that the defendant A posted a commercial sex acts advertisement, such as this part of the facts charged, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts that acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. In light of the method and period of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, two years of suspended execution, probation, community service, 160 hours, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspended execution for two years, community service, 80 hours, and confiscation) is deemed unreasonable.

2. In a criminal trial for determining a mistake of facts, the recognition of facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to a failure, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-trial trial even after deceiving the Defendant, and the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the first instance court may raise probability or doubt as to the facts that

Even if it does not reach the extent to which the reasonable doubt raised in the first instance can be sufficiently resolved.