성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of eight months and fines of ten thousand won,00,000.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, fine of 10,000 won and confiscation, defendant B, six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) are deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.
2. Defendant A’s judgment on the instant crime committed by Defendant A, and his mistake is divided, and the closure of the instant sexual traffic business is favorable to Defendant A.
However, in light of the fact that the act of arranging sexual traffic does not have a significant social hazard, such as the commercialization of women's sex and the harm to the sound sexual culture and good morals, it is necessary to prevent the spread of illegal sexual traffic business establishments, and establish a sound sexual culture, the defendant A has been sentenced to a fine twice due to the act of arranging sexual traffic, and the defendant A has been under suspension of execution one time due to the crime of arranging sexual traffic, and even if the police has been under the control of the police during the crime of this case, it seems to have high risk of re-offending in light of the fact that the act of arranging sexual traffic continues to engage in the act of arranging sexual traffic at the same place, it is intended to interfere with judicial action by requesting the defendant B to do so as to be the owner of the business to be exempted from criminal punishment, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments such as the age and sexual behavior environment of the defendant A and the circumstances before and after the crime.
3. Defendant B’s judgment on Defendant B pretended to be one’s own business and attempted to interfere with judicial action by hiding the fact that Defendant A committed the act of arranging sexual traffic. In light of the circumstances of the crime, the offense is not bad and unfavorable to Defendant B.
On the other hand, there is no record that Defendant B was punished for the same crime, the fact that Defendant B did not actually interfere with the exercise of state punishment rights against Defendant A, and the ageing environment of Defendant B.