logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.07.14 2016고정2382
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be added.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On June 13, 2016, June 15, 2016, and June 17, 2016, the Defendant conducted commercial sex acts more than 10 minutes a day on which a male customer 80,000 won in cash and 90,000 won a card settlement is paid from an unspecified male customer, and 50,000 won a day on which a male customer 80,000 won was paid, and 10 minutes a day on which a male customer’s sexual organ is exposed to or 40,000 won a day (services), and the other day was engaged in commercial sex acts twice a day.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement to the effect that the defendant was working at a marina establishment as indicated in the ruling on June 13, 2016, June 15, 2016, and June 17, 2016, and that the defendant was 80,000 won for one male guest and received 40,000 won a day from one male guest without any guest, and 80,000 won a day from two male customers.

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect with regard to D, and a protocol concerning the examination of suspect two times to the prosecution;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 21 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Mediation, etc. of elective Commercial Sex Acts, concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 21 of the same Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the burden of litigation costs

1. The summary of the defendant's assertion is only a man's drink to male customers at a marina shop operated D on the date and time set by D, and the defendant did not perform the similarity act.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the defendant committed an act of similarity to male customers at a marina shop operated D on the date and time as determined by the defendant.

Since it is reasonable to view the above argument by the defendant, we cannot accept the above argument.

A. D In the police station, “for customers.”

arrow