본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대전지방법원 2014.04.23 2013노2234

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.


1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the testimony of H and the statement of F, etc. of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts (the act of arranging commercial sex acts), the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (1) The summary of the facts charged (A) around 20:40 on May 13, 201, the Defendant received KRW 300,000,000 from F in the K “E” singing practice room operated by the Defendant in Y in Y in Yansan-si, and assisted H, “Domini”, a prompt term “M”, to engage in G and sexual traffic in a room where it is impossible to identify the number of “M” cartels in L at the time of Ysan-si, around 23:00 on the same day.

(B) Around 21:00 on June 10, 201, the Defendant received KRW 300,000,000 from F as chemicalized in the instant singing practice room. Around 23:00 on the same day, the Defendant assisted the said H to engage in G and sexual traffic at the 510 room located in N in Seosan-si.

Accordingly, the defendant committed commercial sex acts such as arranging commercial sex acts.

(2) The lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds that it is difficult to believe that the H’s statement that seems consistent with this part of the facts charged is difficult, that the G’s statement does not directly evidence the facts charged, and that it is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged only with the F’s prosecutor’s statement, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) The reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, on May 13, 201, stated in detail on the grounds of innocence, including the details of the Defendant’s solicitation for sexual traffic on May 13, 201, as well as the background leading up to the instant karaoke machine going into practice on June 10, 201, failed to consistently state in the investigation stage and the court.