(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.12.12.선고 2013노1705 판결

Since the Defendant was in office with his will and was entirely charged to J, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the act of arranging sexual traffic was committed in D located in the 5 and 6th floor of the instant building. From August 23, 2012, the Defendant was informed by the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station that D was under investigation of sexual traffic on August 23, 2012, the Defendant received from the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station a notice that D would not engage in illegal business, such as sexual traffic, and that the lessee would not engage in such illegal business in the future. On January 9, 2013, the police alone concluded that the lease agreement could not be terminated only once, and that the Defendant would not know that there was an act of arranging sexual traffic in D. In light of these circumstances, it is true that the Defendant did not know that there was an act of arranging sexual traffic in D.

In addition, the crime of this case is established only when the defendant provided a building "sibly aware of the fact that it was provided for sexual traffic." The defendant received a report from J around 2005 that he was engaged in sexual traffic, and it was doubtful that young women did not engage in sexual traffic, but did not engage in sexual traffic, but did not terminate the lease relationship because he was unaware of the fact that he was engaged in sexual traffic. In addition, around August 2008, he was aware that D was engaged in the business of a normal massage place after D's business owner changed to F, and did not know of the fact that D was engaged in the business of arranging sexual traffic, etc.

B. Whether to recognize the business nature

Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. provides for aggravated punishment of persons who have engaged in arranging sexual traffic for business purposes, and "business" means a business repeatedly conducted for profit. Therefore, where a building is leased to a person who operates a massage place like the accused, it does not constitute a business of providing the building.

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant became aware of the fact that F et al. performed the act of arranging sexual traffic in D only after receiving the control notice of the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station. Since F et al. did not only engage in the act of arranging sexual traffic but also engaged in the business of a legitimate massage place, only the amount obtained by deducting the rent for using the building for the business of a legitimate massage place after December 2012 is subject to collection.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following facts are acknowledged based on the records of this case as to whether sexual traffic was provided, i.e., (1) AJ, the manager of the building of this case, viewed her clothes short of D around 2005, (2) the police directly viewed her from regulating D, and (3) considered her engaging in sexual traffic in D on the ground that she was aware that her sexual traffic was conducted (Evidence Record 417 pages, trial records 60 pages, 61 pages). (2) The defendant is not a woman funeral, since her around this time, she had a her infant in D. However, even if she had been reported that she was not her employee, she did not take any measures to terminate the lease contract, (4) the defendant knew that she had been aware of her sexual traffic, and that she had been actually operating her sexual traffic, and that she had been aware of the fact that she had been actually operating her sexual traffic in the past from around 2007, and that she had been aware of the fact that she had been actually operating her sexual branch.

Considering the fact that F will use D without changing the former trade name and facilities while accepting and operating D, the J concluded or modified the contract after communicating the Defendant before entering into a new lease agreement or obtaining consent thereto, it appears that F would have been entered into the lease agreement with the Defendant at the time of entering into the lease agreement on the 5 and 6th floor of the building of this case, six police officers called to D on April 4, 2009 and controlled the act of arranging commercial sex acts by sending the case to D on August 28, 2009, and G and I were subject to criminal punishment, it is difficult to view that the Defendant continued to engage in commercial sex acts in D around 205 at the same place, and that the Defendant provided commercial sex acts for rent of this case for the purpose of leasing the same 5 and 6th floor of the building of this case to the Defendant for rent of this case for the purpose of 205.0 billion won, there is no clear ground to view that the Defendant provided commercial sex acts for rent of this case to the Defendant.

C. As recognized in the above 2-A that the Defendant had already been aware of the fact that D had been provided as a place of sexual traffic around August 2008, the date indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, was the same as recognized in the above 2-A. Meanwhile, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case: (a) although some of the customers found D did not engage in sexual traffic, a large number of customers did not engage in sexual traffic; (b) the F had a large number of customers employed a large number of female employees in D to engage in sexual traffic; and (c) there were many cases where there were no marbs which are legally able to perform sexual traffic; and (d) the F has leased the 5-story and 6th floor of the instant building for the purpose of arranging sexual traffic; and (e) the Defendant was aware that D was mainly being used for sexual traffic. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment calculated the full amount of rent collected from F during the period from August 2008 to March 2013.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (However, under Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the "paragraph 2 (c)" of 16 of the judgment of the court below shall be revised as "Article 2 (1) 2 (c)".