beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.09.09 2015노1475

성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (not guilty part of the grounds for appeal);

A. According to evidence submitted by a mistake of facts, the lower court which recognized only the Defendant’s aiding and abetting this part despite the fact that the Defendant operated a sexual traffic business establishment with B even after April 2014, which recognized the fact that the Defendant only aided and abetting this part.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and additional collection) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On March 31, 2014, the Defendant invested KRW 5,000,000, and KRW 10,000,000 around April 1, 2014 from B, who experienced difficulties in arranging commercial sex acts, and conspired to operate I’s commercial sex acts.

The Defendant conspired with B from April 1, 2014 to July 28, 2014, the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon District Court: (a) divided sexual traffic women Q, R, and M, etc. into the said officetel into the said officetel at night and at night; (b) made male and female sexual traffic women contact with the said officetel at night; (c) made male and female sexual traffic women known the place where the sexual traffic women are located and arranged sexual intercourse with them; (d) received 1.20,00 won in the day from customers and 1.30,000 won in the night; (e) paid to the sexual traffic women at night; and (e) the Defendants received 336,000 won in the total sum, and 130,000 won in the night; and (e) arranged sexual traffic by acquiring and arranging the sexual traffic commission, as shown in the attached Form of Crimes (2) in the judgment of the court below, by means of receiving the remainder of 40,000 won in the cost of arranging sexual traffic.

B. After April 2014, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s statement was consistent with the Defendant’s defense that only helps the Defendant conduct the business of B, and that the statement of C and T, which seem to correspond to the relevant part of the facts charged, is insufficient to deem that the Defendant operated the instant sexual traffic business through B and Dong business after around April 2014, on the grounds that it is insufficient to view that the Defendant operated the instant sexual traffic business.