beta
Text
Defendant
F’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant F1) misunderstanding the fact that the area was displayed in the advertisement on the “X” website operated by Defendant F, solely on the fact that such advertisement was indicated in the facts charged by Defendant F, it cannot be readily concluded that the advertisement was an advertisement for the job offer of a commercial sex business establishment. Defendant F did not know that such advertisement was an advertisement for the job offering of a commercial sex business establishment, and Defendant F did not intend to prevent the advertisement of a commercial sex business establishment by taking measures such as establishment of a regulation and suspension of a violation advertisement. Thus, Defendant F did not have any intention.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant F (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of execution of two years) is excessively unreasonable.
B. In full view of the contents and expressions of advertising materials that the Defendants posted on their own website and the website users are job seekers, each advertisement indicated in the facts charged that the lower court acquitted the Defendants can be sufficiently recognized as advertisement advertisement for job offer of sexual traffic establishments. Thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
2. Determination
A. Determination 1 on Defendant F’s grounds for appeal 1) Defendant F’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts was also asserted in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by stating the judgment in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and thus, Defendant F’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.
2) The fact that there is no previous conviction beyond the same kind of judgment and fine as to the unfair argument of sentencing, the fact that the advertisement of a sexual traffic business establishment is mainly posted after the control of the investigative agency, and that it is not re-offending by taking additional measures to prevent the advertisement of a sexual traffic business establishment.