beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person running the “Curel” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant telecom”), and D is a person who served as an employee in the instant telecom with the Plaintiff’s birth.
B. On December 29, 2015, the chief of the Suwon Police Station notified the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) with the content that “D around July 23, 2015, F, etc. of female employees of an entertainment drinking house, etc., upon entering with male customers, provided a place for sexual traffic with awareness of engaging in sexual traffic,” and D was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million (the instant summary order) at the Seoul Central District Court on January 5, 2016, on the ground of the aforementioned violation.
C. On March 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) provided a place for sexual traffic to the Plaintiff, who is an operator of the instant telecom; and (b) provided a commercial sex trafficking brokerage, etc. (hereinafter “instant violation”); (c) on the ground that the Defendant committed an act of arranging sexual traffic (hereinafter “instant violation”); (d) under Article 11(1) and (2) of the former Public Health Control Act (Amended by Act No. 13983, Feb. 3, 2016); and (e) Article 19 [Attachment 7] of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act
[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, and 10 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and D did not know that female employees and male customers engaged in sexual traffic in the instant telecom. Thus, there was an error of misunderstanding the instant disposition. 2) Even if the instant disposition is acknowledged, the degree of illegality is minor, and the Plaintiff operated the instant telecom for about seven years.