logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.06.12 2019노3467
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit any act of arranging sexual traffic, and at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not include the expenses of sexual traffic or the expenses of arranging sexual traffic in the payment that the Defendant received, and D, a whistleblower, did not commit any act of arranging sexual traffic with a female entertainment loan.

B. In light of the legal principles, D is the primary point of this case solely for the purpose of receiving reporting compensation without intent to purchase sex, and induce the arrangement of commercial sex, even if the Defendant mediated commercial sex acts between D and female entertainment loans, it cannot be punished as an act of arranging commercial sex acts.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misconception of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles refer to the mediation or convenience between the parties who intend to engage in the sexual traffic. Thus, in order to become the mediation of sexual traffic, it does not necessarily require that the parties who intend to engage in the sexual traffic have actually engaged in the sexual traffic or face-to-face with each other, and it is sufficient that the parties have been engaged in the sexual traffic even if they had no involvement by the parties who intend to engage in the sexual traffic, even if they have connected with the intentions of the parties who intend to engage in the sexual traffic, and there is only an arrangement to the extent that they are able to engage in the sexual traffic (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8808, Feb. 17, 2005). 2) Determination of misconception of facts is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. i.e., the defendant provided guidance to 1 female entertainment tavern loan to 300,000 won in addition to the entertainment expense loan in this case.

arrow