logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2019.08.29 2019고단139
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

(b)mera includes money received from a teahouse value;

(3) No statement shall be identified in the statement of the total amount of the note itself.

④ D has recorded daily sales, and D has the benefit of 1/20,000 remaining 1/20,000 of its sales without receiving a special monthly wage.

Application of Statutes

1. The punishment of acts of arranging sexual traffic under Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic concerning facts constituting an offense (excluding the occupation of arranging sexual traffic) and Articles 97 subparagraph 6 and 44 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act (including the occupation of violating the Food Sanitation Act), and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes;

1. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria, and the sexual traffic crimes subject to the age of 19 years or more;

(b) [Type 2] Aggravation area, such as brokerage, etc. of commercial sex acts due to business and receipt, etc. of consideration, one to three years of imprisonment (a special increase factor: a prolonged or organized crime] * Criteria for sentencing has been set only for some crimes, referring only to the lower limit;

2. In relation to the brokerage of sexual traffic, the Defendant: (a) avoided the employee’s awareness during the investigation process; and (b) took part in the employee’s or gender purchase by telephone, etc.

It is doubtful whether the defendant is aware of the mistake of the substitute principal, such as the passive disregarding of sexual traffic or providing an opportunity, even in court.

The Defendant had already been punished for a fine of KRW 700,000 on March 15, 2006 and a fine of KRW 3 million on October 29, 2010 with respect to the operation of C.

Even after the change of business registration in another person's name, the defendant himself/herself continued to operate in the form of having his/her employee receive the ticket expenses while delivering the tea.

In light of the employee's statement, tweet expenses are written when they drink or drink only.

arrow