Defendant

The movement port (prosecution) and Kim balance (trial)

Attorney Lee Jong-hwan

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant is the representative of an enterprise mediating international marriage in the name of “○ International Marriage” in the Gyeonggi-si ( Address 2 omitted).

An international marriage broker shall translate and provide a user who has entered into a contract and the other party to marriage brokerage with personal information on marriage, health status, occupation, sexual violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and criminal records corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for the latest ten years, and other matters prescribed by other Acts and subordinate statutes of the other party and the other party, respectively, in a language understandable by which they can understand, and shall arrange for remainder after obtaining a written consent, if both the user and the other party agree to rest.

Nevertheless, at around 11:00 on July 30, 2013, the Defendant did not provide personal information according to the relevant laws and regulations, such as the marriage history, health status, occupation, sexual violence, child abuse, sexual traffic, sexual traffic trafficking, and coercion related criminal records, and criminal records corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for the last ten years, in order to make an international marriage to Non-Indicted 1 in the guest room in the Chinese ice-si (resident 1 omitted).

Accordingly, the Defendant did not provide Nonindicted Party 1 with personal information prior to Mannam while arranging with the Chinese woman “Nonindicted Party 2”.

2. Determination

According to Articles 10(1) and 10-2 of the Marriage Brokerage Business Management Act, an international marriage broker who has entered into a brokerage contract with a user in writing for the purpose of marriage brokerage shall provide the user with the personal information of the other party in writing.

According to the evidence adopted by this court and duly completed evidence examination, the following facts may be acknowledged. During the process of receiving counseling from the Defendant on international marriage brokerage, Nonindicted 1 visited the Defendant’s ○○ International Marriage Office operated by the Defendant, Nonindicted 1 demanded the Defendant to introduce multiple women at once, and demanded the Defendant to pay the balance of KRW 4 million out of KRW 6,150,000,000, and to pay the balance upon the completion of marriage. The Defendant is unable to enter into a contract on such terms and conditions, and instead, intended to introduce a Chinese broker. Nonindicted 1 agreed, and the brokerage contract was prepared between Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3 (China) (the Nonindicted 1 stated to the same purport in this court on the process of preparation of the marriage brokerage contract). In light of the fact that the Defendant received KRW 4 million from Nonindicted 1, 300,000,000 from Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 3 was also difficult to recognize that the Defendant received the receipts from Nonindicted 1, 410,000, China.

Therefore, it cannot be recognized that the defendant is a mandatory subject to the provision of personal information of the other party to non-indicted 1.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, it shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but it shall not be publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Park Jong-young