logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.19 2017노1112
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)등
Text

The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

60,700,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The appeal of the defendant is against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s sentence is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts concerning the calculation of a surcharge and misapprehending the legal doctrine, the Defendant is in the position of the proprietor of the sexual traffic intermediary business during the period from June 12, 2015 to September 20, 2015, and thus, the said period should not be excluded from the calculation of a surcharge.

2) Undue sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court in the grounds of sentencing and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the record, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable, as it is too unreasonable.

B. Determination 1 on the Prosecutor’s Claim 1) Whether the legal doctrine related to the calculation of additional collection charges is subject to confiscation, or whether the amount of additional collection is subject to confiscation, based on evidence, but it is not related to the elements for establishing a crime, and thus it is not necessary to prove strict evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). In addition, if one or more persons jointly commit an act such as arranging and arranging sexual traffic, etc., and if it is impossible to confiscate money and valuables and other property acquired from the crime, the value of profits actually acquired by each of the accomplices should be collected individually, but if individual gains cannot be known, the total amount of profits should be equally divided and collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do223, May 14, 2009; 2009Do223, May 14, 2009). (1) In addition, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, the Defendant’s mere brokerage and management of sexual traffic after his/her lawful employment.

arrow