[1] Whether the act of arranging sexual traffic continues to be leased without suspending the act of providing a building, even though it was known that the act of providing a building was provided for sexual traffic after leasing the building, under Article 2(1)2(c) of the former Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (affirmative)

[2] In a case where Defendant (the owner of a building) was prosecuted for violating the former Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. on the ground that he continuously provided sexual traffic by leasing it to the National Police Agency despite having known that sexual traffic takes place in the building after leasing the building to Party A, the case affirming the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant

[1] Article 2(1)2(c) of the former Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (amended by Act No. 10697, May 23, 201) provides that "the act of providing a building knowing the fact that a building is provided for sexual traffic" constitutes "act of arranging sexual traffic, etc.". In light of the legislative intent of the Act to eradicate sexual traffic acts, such as coercion, brokerage, etc., which are connected to our society by blocking a supplier of commercial sex acts and an intermediary, and the fact that the above provision does not limit the acts of providing a building to the acts of delivering a building, the "act of providing a building knowing the fact that a building is provided for sexual traffic" refers to the act of providing a building with a knowledge of the fact that a lessee was provided for sexual traffic at the time of lease, but it was known by the notice of the result of the investigation agency, etc. after the termination of a lease agreement of the building and the intention to demand the return of possession, and thus, it should be deemed that the situation of providing a commercial activity has not been terminated.

[2] In a case where Defendant (the owner of a building) was indicted for violating the former Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (amended by Act No. 10697, May 23, 2011) on the ground that he continued to provide the building by leasing it to Party A after being notified by the National Police Agency that the building would be provided as a place for sexual traffic, the case holding that, in a case where Defendant requested Party A to send a letter verifying the purport that “I will not engage in sexual traffic in the future building, and if I will engage in illegal business, I will order the building.” Although Party A refused to do so, the above measures cannot be deemed as suspending the provision of the building on the ground that the lease contract is not definitely terminated.

[1] Article 2(1)2(c) of the former Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (Amended by Act No. 10697, May 23, 201) / [2] Article 2(1)2(c) and Article 19(1)1 of the former Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (Amended by Act No. 10697, May 23, 201)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Squa Law Firm, Attorneys Oh Jin-jin et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010No317 Decided May 7, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2(1)2(c) of the former Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (amended by Act No. 10697, May 23, 201) provides that “the act of providing a building with knowledge of the fact that the building is provided for sexual traffic” constitutes “the act of arranging commercial sex acts, etc..” In light of the legislative purport of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., such as coercion, brokerage, etc. and the fact that the said provision does not limit the acts of providing a building to the act of delivering a building, which is connected to our society by blocking a supplier of commercial sex acts and an intermediary. In light of the legislative purport of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. and the fact that the said provision does not limit the acts of offering a building to the act of delivering a building, “the act of offering a building with knowledge of the fact that the building is provided for sexual traffic at the time of leasing the building, although the lessee was unaware of the building at the time of leasing it, it shall be deemed to continue the lease.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the owner of the building of this case and the lessor of this case notified the Seoul District Police Agency that the building of this case was provided as a sexual traffic place, and then sent to the non-indicted who is the lessee a letter of evidence that "if the building of this case does not engage in sexual traffic and if the building of this case is engaged in illegal business, it is ordered to order the building" and the non-indicted was refused by the non-indicted. However, in light of the above legal principles, the above measures taken by the defendant do not terminate the above lease contract definitely, and thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have suspended the provision of the building of this case.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant cannot be deemed to have taken appropriate measures to prevent use of the building of this case as a sexual traffic place any longer after becoming aware of the fact that the building of this case was provided as a sexual traffic place. Although its reasoning is somewhat inappropriate, it is just in its conclusion, and it does not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)