(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.08.16 2018노1273 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2018.08.16 2018노1273

성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)

Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2) In Kim Sea-si, Kim Sea-si, which the Defendant provided to arrange sexual traffic of A (hereinafter “instant building 201”), a sentence of forfeiture should be imposed.

B. The above sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion on the part of confiscation is subject to the limitation of proportionality as to the confiscation stipulated in Article 8(1) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

In order to determine whether confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, various circumstances such as the degree and scope used for the commission of this crime (hereinafter “goods”) and the importance of the goods subject to confiscation, the role and degree of responsibility of the owner of the goods in the commission of the crime, the degree of infringement of legal interests and interests caused by the commission of the crime, motive for the commission of the crime, profits generated from the crime, separate possibility of separating the part related to the commission of the crime from among the goods, the substantial value of the goods and their relationship and balance with the crime, whether the goods are essential to the person who committed the act, and if the goods are not confiscated, the offender was provided to the crime by using the goods, and the risk and degree of the occurrence of the same crime again (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da2013, May 23, 2013, etc.). Defendant B leased the instant building 201 to Defendant A and acquired profits by receiving payment of the amount of KRW 1.9 million per month.

However, examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it appears that the confiscation of the instant building 201 is contrary to the principle of proportionality, and thus, the confiscation of the instant building 201 is not ordered.

(1) The content of the crime committed by Defendant B is known to be provided for sexual traffic.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.03.20 2013노5473

-대구지방법원 2020.06.11 2019노2362

-부산지방법원 2018.11.15 2018노3491

-울산지방법원 2021.03.18 2021노34

-서울남부지방법원 2020.12.18 2020노188