logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2014.11.06 2014노283
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(알선영업행위등)등
Text

Defendant

C, D’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal are all dismissed.

Reasons

The court below found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that the Defendants violated the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Good Offices, etc.), and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Coercive Conduct, etc.), among the facts charged against the Defendants, on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to deem that the above Defendants had led or contributed to the overall operation, etc. of the arrangement of commercial sex acts as a principal offender or controlled functional acts, and that they were in violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Good Offices, etc.) and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Coercive Act, etc.).

As a public prosecutor appealed only on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, the part of the judgment of the court below, which was not guilty, shall be deemed to have been exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties. As to this part, the conclusion of innocence in the judgment of the court below

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

C. The victims of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles of the D Defendants were allowed to freely enter the studio, and they did not receive any surveillance during their return to sexual traffic. As such, there was no fact that the victims were detained as stated in the crime of Paragraph 1 in the original trial, and there was a fact that there was arranging sexual traffic after obtaining consent from the victims, but there was no fact that the victims were forced to engage in sexual traffic and received compensation for sexual traffic, such as the crime of Paragraph 2 in the original trial.

Furthermore, even if arranging sexual traffic, it cannot be deemed that the brokerage of sexual traffic, which is the constituent element of Article 15(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, has been made.

Defendant

C Even if the facts charged against the defendant alleged a mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles are found guilty, the defendant D's.

arrow