[1] Criteria for recognition of "criminal intent" required for the establishment of a crime of violation of Article 25 (1) 3 of the former Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act

[2] The case holding that the defendants' act of leasing entertainment taverns or lending business expenses, such as prepaid money, etc. to their female employees, was recognized to have been used for the purpose of arranging prostitution for the business of providing buildings and funds, and that the person who received prepaid money is not female employees, but rather female employees, who are formal debtors specified in a loan certificate

[1] Article 13 of the Criminal Act, Article 25 (1) 2 and 3 of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, Etc. (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., Act No. 7196, Mar. 22, 2004) / [2] Article 13 of the Criminal Act, Article 25 (1) 2 and 3 of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging, etc., Act No. 7196, Mar. 22, 2004)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056 decided Apr. 29, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 887)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Law Firm Dao, Attorneys Park Jong-mun et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 2004No2792 Decided November 18, 2005

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Article 25(1)3 and 2 of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, Etc. (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., Act No. 7196, Mar. 22, 2004; hereinafter “the Act”), which applies to the instant case, is a provision punishing “a person who knowingly knows that he/she is used for a crime of prostitution through business, and provides money, land, or building.” The actor must have an intention to punish “a person who provides money, land, or building, knowing that he/she is used for the crime of prostitution.” Since such intention is internal facts, if the Defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove by the method of proving indirect facts having considerable relation with the intention given the nature of things (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005). Moreover, the perception of the act of prostitution as to the act of arranging the act of prostitution does not need to be aware of the specific details of the crime.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning by taking full account of the employment evidence, and determined that the defendants conspired to lease entertainment taverns to Nonindicted 1 or lend business expenses, such as prepaid money, etc. of female employees, and provided buildings or funds by Defendant 1 through leasing entertainment taverns to Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, etc. or lending the prepaid money to the female employees, etc., and that the buildings or funds are used for the crime of aiding and abetting prostitution for business purposes by Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 3, etc., and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which was applied to the defendants as crimes of violation of Article 25 (1) 3 and 2 of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc., and in light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below's judgment on the preparation of evidence, fact-finding, and determination at the court of first instance is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to a crime of violation of Article 25 (1) 3 and 2 of the Prevention of Prostitution, etc.

2. In light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that the person who received prepaid payments from Defendant 1 is not female employees, who are the formal debtor specified in the loan certificate, but the owner of entertainment taverns. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Prevention of Violation of the Act, such as incomplete deliberation, misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and leapsing, etc.

3. Examining the evidence adopted by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 was used in collusion with Defendant 1, who is the husband, for the business of arranging prostitution, and the crime of violation of the Prevention Act, such as the act of prostitution, etc., by providing the building and funds to Nonindicted 1, even though he was aware of the fact that it was used for the crime of arranging prostitution, so the judgment below to the same purport is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation,

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)