beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant E are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal argues that the Defendants did not clearly state the fact-finding, but the surcharge is excessive, so the Defendants’ assertion that this is erroneous.
A. Defendants 1) The lower court’s judgment erred by mismisunderstanding the basic facts in calculating the additional collection charge.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment for each of the Defendants, two years of suspended sentence, community service, confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence against Defendant E by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court stated that Defendant E’s assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated as follows: ① Defendant E, from September 25, 2017 to September 20, 2017, Defendant E’s prosecutorial investigation conducted on his/her prosecutorial investigation conducted on his/her own as of August 20, 2016 to October 2016, as well as R, Q, and S, with the exception of money paid to female employees from November 1, 2016 to March 7, 2017 (Evidence 15,00,000,000 won, excluding money paid to Defendant E’s employees as of November 1, 2016 to March 7, 2017). (Evidence 2398, 2426, 2427th day of evidence record); ② Defendant E’s number of women engaged in sexual traffic; and ② Defendant E’s number of women engaged in sexual traffic at the police station’s average number of men and women’s 37.
AP made a statement (Evidence No. 457 pages), and on March 8, 2017, at the police investigation conducted on March 8, 2017, the average of four men and sexual traffic were engaged in sexual traffic.
The statement was made (Evidence No. 483 pages) and Defendant E also had 7,8 men who purchase gender per day at the police investigation on March 7, 2017.
In light of the statement(Evidence No. 470 pages), price for sexual traffic, etc., an excessive surcharge is calculated.
In light of the above, Defendant E’s assertion of mistake is without merit.
B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant G’s assertion of mistake in fact.