logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2017.02.07 2016고단933
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a Mabden D with facilities, such as 6 marina rooms, 2 bathing rooms, and 1 water surface rooms in Sacheon-si C3.

On December 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sought 90,00 won as a price for commercial sex acts from customers E, and arranged to have female employees employed in the said establishment do similar acts in a manner that misleads E in his/her sexual organ in his/her hands; (b) and (c) made an act of arranging commercial sex acts by the same method on December 14, 2015 and April 29, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, and H;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Copies of protocol concerning the police and examination of suspects by the prosecution with regard to I;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor to F and E by the prosecution;

1. Each of the pending events referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 4 of seized evidence;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry about criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on judgment;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging, etc. Sexual Traffic concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 19 (2) 1 and a fine;

1. Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act for forfeiture, and Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, Including Mediation of Commercial Sex Acts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The prosecutor under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the prosecutor’s respective arguments and judgment of the defendant are indicted as follows: from December 13, 2015 to April 29, 2016, that the defendant assisted the employees of the business place operated by the defendant to engage in acts similar to the customers.

The defendant asserts that he did not arrange sexual traffic for business purposes during the above period.

The summary of the judgment of this court is that the part concerning the mediation of commercial sex acts as of December 13, 2015 among the above facts charged is guilty (the crime committed in the judgment), but the remaining facts charged, i.e., the part concerning the mediation of commercial sex acts from December 15, 2016 to April 28, 2016.

arrow