logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.09.22 2017고단693
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

B The above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The sole criminal conduct of Defendant A;

A. Although anyone is prohibited from employing a person who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities, the defendant operated "D Magaz", which is a sexual traffic business establishment located in Dao-si, and around January 4, 2017, entered the said sexual traffic business establishment into the status of sojourn for visiting (H-2-7) and paid a monthly salary of two million won to a Chinese citizen who is unable to be employed in the said business establishment and employed as an employee of the said business establishment.

B. On January 13, 2017, the Defendant entered the said commercial sex acts establishment as a short-term visit (C-3-9) and paid half of the price for commercial sex acts to Chinese women E, who are unable to engage in job-seeking activities, and employed them as female employees of the said establishment.

2. No foreigner who commits a single crime under Defendant B shall engage in employment activities without obtaining the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities;

In spite of the fact that the Defendant, Chinese, entered into the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2-7) and could not be employed in a sexual traffic business establishment, the Defendant, who is a Chinese, was paid KRW 2 million a month wage from A, who is an operator of a sexual traffic business establishment, as stated in paragraph (1) around January 4, 2017, and was employed as an employee of the said business establishment.

3. The Defendants jointly committed the crime is a person operating "D marina shop", which is a commercial sex acts business establishment listed in paragraph (1). Defendant B (B) served as an employee at the said commercial sex acts business establishment, as described in paragraph (2), and provided guidance to male customers at studio and deliver them to Defendant A, a business owner, by receiving the price of commercial sex acts from customers.

The Defendants, at around 17:00 on January 31, 2017, paid 100,000 won as the price for sexual traffic from F, a customer, and demanded Chinese employees, to enter the F, a room in which they are female employees, as well as 10,000 won as the price for sexual traffic from January 4, 2017 to January 31, 2017.

arrow