(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.07.12 2018고정176

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.07.12 2018고정176

성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of the building in Busan Dong-gu with the interest of the building owner in Busan Dong-gu.

On June 28, 2017, around 03:00, the Defendant is subject to punishment pursuant to Article 19 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts, such as the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, if he/she continues to provide sexual traffic places, through the control site and notice.

“Although the police officer’s notification was received from the police officer on July 12, 2017, 201: (a) 80,000 won for 60 women without the name of 01:0 on July 12, 2017, who got off 70,000 and provided sexual traffic arrangement to South D (22, South and North) for the purchase of sexual intercourse; (b) the Defendant provided the said establishment with the said Do, and (c) the Defendant provided the said Do, with guidance to the E heading without receiving the her royalties; and (d) in order to carry out the said D and sexual traffic, the Russian F (35,00) of the cel’s nationality of sexual traffic (35 years, female, and female) provided guidance to the E heading.

Therefore, the defendant provided a sub-building with the sub-building even though he knew that the cel is being provided with sexual traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the accused, D, or F;

1. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant and the defense counsel did not arrange for the Defendant to provide the cel to the place of sexual traffic with the knowledge of the fact that the F, a female woman, has engaged in sexual traffic, and that the G and F are merely to use the cel as the place of sexual traffic, in which the Defendant and the defense counsel have used the cel as the place of sexual traffic, with the knowledge of the fact that the Defendant would engage in sexual traffic.

Therefore, according to the evidence mentioned above, the above argument shall not be accepted, since it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's sexual traffic mediation is conducted.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2017.11.09 2017고정305

-제주지방법원 2017.02.02 2016고단2646

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2018.03.13 2017고단836

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.05.19 2016고정210

-수원지방법원 2017.08.24 2017고정1782