logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.26 2015노7329
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A1 did not assist and abetting the crime in violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic by Co-Defendant B, etc., Defendant A was guilty of the crime committed in violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (the brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic) (the brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic), the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty

2) The sentence against Defendant A (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, three years of suspended execution, and surveillance of protection) of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence against the Defendants of the lower court (Defendant B: 2 years of probation, one year of protection observation, 80 hours of community service order, confiscation, and Defendant A: one year of probation, three years of probation, and one year of protection observation) on the Defendants of the lower court is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court as to the assertion of facts, namely, ① Defendant A was called “I” from January 1, 2013 to September 22, 2014 at the place of massage treatment operated by B (hereinafter “the place of massage treatment in this case”) to the effect that “I” was called “I” and deemed to be a massage; ② Co-Defendant B stated in the investigative agency that “I knew that I would engage in sexual traffic; ③ the place of sexual traffic was installed in the place of the place of the massage treatment in this case; ③ Defendant A had been working for a long time in the place of the massage treatment in this case; ④ Defendant A had been working for 24 hours at the inside of the place of the massage treatment in this case; ④ Defendant A’s day of massage treatment in this case to the effect that I would have been aware of the fact that I would have been able to get the disabled person to commute from the place of the instant case’s place of massage treatment in the investigative agency.

arrow