2013Do1631 Violation of the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. Act (Notification of Commercial Sex Acts)

Ships, etc.)

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Law Firm B

Attorney C

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013No1705 Decided December 12, 2013

February 27, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, which provides a building with knowledge of the fact that it is provided for sexual traffic, includes the lease of the building and continuous lease without suspending the provision of the building (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6297 Decided August 25, 201), and in cases where "act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. continuously for profit" is performed only for commercial purposes or for commercial purposes in cases where sexual traffic is committed as an incidental business to other businesses, even though the building was aware of the fact that it is provided for sexual traffic, and even though it was aware of the fact that it is provided for sexual traffic, it constitutes "act of arranging sexual traffic, etc." under Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, etc.

22. Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8095 Decided September 22, 2006; 2005Do9575 Decided September 22, 2006; 2011

12. 22. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14272 Decided December 22, 201

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court recognized that the 5 and 6th floor of the instant building were, despite being aware of the fact that they were provided for sexual traffic, provided a place for sexual traffic for business purposes by leasing it, and furthermore, determined that the calculation of the surcharge by the first instance court is justifiable, and rejected the allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and upheld the

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intent in the crime of violating the aforementioned Act (i.e., the act of arranging commercial sex acts) and the subject of collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young