logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.26 2016고단2653
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months, by imprisonment of 6 months, and by a fine of 2 million won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A From around July 17, 2015 to October 2015, from Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, from around October 17, 2015 to around 2015, A had nine guest rooms with approximately 9 square meters from the first floor of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from around October 2015 to August 9, 2016, and operated one guest rooms and three screen rooms for one person in guest rooms, and Defendant B, from around May 2016 to around July 28, 2016, had a position position as the head of office in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1 from around July 2016 to manage the said kis, and Defendant C, from around July 20, 2016 to around July 28, 2016, performed the role of “the head of the Eunpyeong-gu office outside the scope of business.”

Defendant

A, as above, in operating H key room, assigned employees to manage and operate the said key room by employing Defendant B, Defendant C, etc. as employees. The female employees I, J, K, etc. posted the current status of female employees’ work at the Internet site “L” and “M” to put up an advertisement at the above key key room. Defendant B sent a male customer contact with the above key room with the above key room phone number at 30,000 won and 65,000 won per hour and 65,000 won to the guest room with the female employees entering the room, and sent a physical interview with the female employees, so that female employees can see the above male employees’ work to see that they are engaged in cleaning and working outside the given room by means of regulating the male employees’ sexual intercourse, etc., and that the male employees’ sexual intercourse with the above male employees’ sexual intercourse between the female employees.

As a result, the defendants conspired to arrange the similarity act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Prosecutions with respect to N.

arrow