logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.11 2018노2803
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles only introduced B to C, which was trying to operate a business of arranging sexual traffic, and it does not have been involved in the crime of arranging sexual traffic committed by the two in collusion.

The court below recognized the defendant as participating in the business of arranging the sexual traffic in this case and judged that the defendant is a joint principal offender of the sexual traffic that C and B committed, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and misapprehending the legal principles

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, a fine of ten million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake, i.e., ① the defendant stated that C was a sole offender in the police for the purpose of retaliation against the business of arranging sexual traffic (C was regulated by the business of arranging sexual traffic around May and June, 2016) and for the purpose of concealing the so-called "P" through the defendant's information, and then the prosecutor stated the defendant as a voluntary offender at the prosecutor's office. However, there is no evidence suggesting that C was under control by the defendant's information, and C did not have any awareness that C was under control by the defendant's information, and if C has the motive for such false statement, it is reasonable to view C was a person who stated in the police office that he was unemployed from the time of the first statement at the police office to the effect that he was receiving the business of arranging sexual traffic from the so-called "P", while the defendant stated that he was not aware that he was an accomplice, but it is difficult to reverse the investigator's examination.

arrow