logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.09.12 2013노2022
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles came to know that the act of arranging sexual traffic was committed in the building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) as indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant notified E of the termination of the lease contract. Since then E, etc. used it illegally while occupying the said building, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant provided the instant building. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (a fine of KRW 2 million, an additional collection of KRW 66 million) is too unlimited, even if not, and thus, unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Article 2(1)2(c) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that “an act of providing a building with knowledge of the fact that a building is provided for sexual traffic” constitutes “act of arranging sexual traffic, etc.” In light of the legislative purport of the Act to eradicate sexual traffic acts, such as coercion, arrangement, etc., which are connected to our society by blocking the supplier of sexual traffic and intermediate vehicles, and the fact that the above provision does not limit the contents of the act of providing a building to the act of delivering the building. In this context, “an act of providing a building with knowledge of the fact that a building is provided for sexual traffic” refers to an act of providing a building for sexual traffic at the time of lease, although the lessee was unaware of the fact that the building was provided for sexual traffic at the time of lease, it was known by the notification of the results of the control by the investigative agency, etc., but it continued to lease the building without suspending a lease relationship and without indicating the intention to demand a return of possession.

arrow