beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendants can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendants conspired to arrange the commercial sex acts or provided a place for the commercial sex acts for business purposes, and even if the above facts are not acknowledged, although the court was obligated to determine whether the defendant Eul independently mediated the commercial sex acts, the court below acquitted all of the facts charged in this case and did not determine whether the defendant Eul independently mediated the commercial sex acts. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, omission
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case No. 1) Defendant A, from March 1, 2014 to April 11, 2016, Defendant A, Defendant A, as the person who operates a place of business of similarity with the trade name of “H” by employing the employees, Defendants B, C, and G, etc., with the size of 9 square meters in size of 99 square meters (30 square meters) of the 3rd floor located in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, 2016.
Defendant
A around April 11, 2016, at around 21:50, arranged commercial sex acts by allowing male customers to receive 100,000 won in return for the similarity act from male customers and to act similar to G, an employee.
B) Defendant B, at the time and place indicated in the above paragraph (a) above, notified a male guest who had found the said business at the place where he had been employed as a camera in the said business, that the said business is a place where the said business is "Handb" refers to the act of similarity. Defendant B received KRW 100,000 from the said customer in return for the act of similarity, and then arranged commercial sex acts by allowing employees to engage in the act of similarity with G.
C) Defendant C is a man who actually manages the businesses and employees of the above businesses operated by Defendant C, the mother of Defendant C, at the time and place described in the above paragraph (a).