logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.08.10 2016노407
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반
Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (Defendant B) Defendant B did not instruct Defendant A to arrange sexual traffic as stated in the judgment below.

B. Improper sentencing (the Defendants and the Prosecutor) 1) Defendants’ respective punishments (the imprisonment of each of the Defendants, 8 months of probation, 2 years of probation, observation of protection, community service, etc.) are too unreasonable.

2) Each sentence of the lower court by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted that Defendant B had the same purport as the assertion of mistake of the above facts, and the lower court, on the following grounds, determined that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to arrange sexual traffic, as stated in the lower judgment.

① The Defendants informed H of the demand of H as netly as a partner, and the Defendants did not receive a separate franchise fee from H or G, and the Defendants were a partner at the time of drinking alcohol.

In light of the aspects of the F’s movement to the telecom room with H and the fact that two people had sexual intercourse, H moved to the telecom room for sexual traffic.

It is reasonable to view it.

② In relation to the instant case, G is KRW 1,280,00,000. In light of the following circumstances, the said KRW 1,280,000 appears to be G and H to be T/Cable Char for 17 years Eass. 2 to 80,000,000,000 for Eass. 17 years Eass.

It is reasonable to view that 200,000 won, 30,000 won, and 250,000 won for H sexual traffic.

According to the receipts by which the Defendants can confirm the contents of the instant entertainment shop business, the amount received by the Defendants from the customers shall be deemed to be the same item, considering that the amount per unit is the same as the amount per unit and the Defendants did not make any specific assertion as to the difference by indication.

arrow