logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.10.16 2019고단1454
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Nos. 1, 2, and 2 of the evidence seized by Busan District Prosecutors' Office in 2019.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall assist in engaging in sexual traffic for business purposes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from early November 2018, operated a similar trade establishment with the trade name "F" in Busan-gu Btel C, Busan-gu Btel C, D and E, etc. on February 14, 2019, the Defendant, upon receiving KRW 70,000 from I of the customers who discovered the Internet advertisement (H), had the above G perform the similar act by making him/her quickly malthm of male customers or b5,000 won from his/her hand and pay KRW 25,00,000 from November 1, 2018 to February 10, 2019, and had him/her perform the similar act with his/her male customers over 70,000 won (from November 1, 2018 to February 14, 2019, from 10, 2010 to 30,000 employees from his/her hand, and 19:5,000 employees from his/her own on May 14, 2019, 2019.

Accordingly, the defendant arranged sexual traffic for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G, I, J, M, and K;

1. Lritten statements;

1. Reports on internal investigation (limited to the attachment of photographs to advertisements of similar business places) and advertisement photographs;

1. Each police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. A real estate lease contract;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., comprehensively over the relevant Articles of the Acts and the choice of punishment for the crimes;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. are as follows: (a) the Defendant, on November 16, 2017, issued a summary order of KRW 7 million at the court on the following grounds: (b) the Defendant, in the instant case, has operated an officetel room with the same trade name in six rooms of the same officetel

arrow