성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of collection against Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
A 28,830,635 won,
1. Summary of grounds for appeal - Fact misunderstanding (misunderstanding of legal principles) and improper sentencing
A. Defendant A, B, and B (misunderstanding of facts) paid the amount of KRW 30 million under the pretext of the introduction fee to Defendants A, and B (misunderstanding of facts). The lower court recognized the fact that the amount was KRW 18 million and calculated excessively the amount of additional collection against the Defendants.
2) Defendant C (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) received KRW 12 million in return for the introduction of a female to Defendant A and B of sexual traffic, and the remainder of the introduction cost claimed by the said Defendants was received by the said Defendants as “AS (or “ATS”).”
In addition, since the defendant used the title of "A", the introduction fee for AA is a consideration for the introduction of the defendant himself/herself, and the amount should be excluded from the collection.
Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding facts and understanding the legal principles on additional collection, thereby excessively calculating the amount of additional collection against the defendant.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (i) imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 36,830,635, and ② Defendant B: imprisonment for a year and six months and fine of KRW 5,00,000, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 36,879,000, ③ Defendant C: imprisonment for a year, additional collection of KRW 18,000,000, and ④ Defendant M: 2 years of suspended execution of April, 19, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 780,000.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the statements made by Defendant A, B, and C in this court, the facts that Defendant A, and B paid KRW 30,000 to Defendant C and “AS” are recognized as having received KRW 12,00,000 among them. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the premise that Defendant A and B paid KRW 18,000,000 under the pretext of introduction and all of them.