logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 영월지원 2015.11.06 2015고단172
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant in the facts charged is a person who operates a Edial from the Gangwon-gun D and the second floor of the Gangwon-gun.

On March 2013, the Defendant: (a) received 200,000 won from the customer F, and (b) had the said female employee G engage in sexual intercourse with F, thereby mediating sexual traffic; and (c) divided the said payments into G and half of the said payments.

In addition, from around that time to June 11, 2014, the Defendant received commercial sex acts from customers 15 times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, and let G and H act as a sexual intercourse with customers, thereby mediating commercial sex acts, and divided into G and H into half of the commercial sex acts, thereby raising approximately KRW 1,450,000 for the above period.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant does not prosecute the violation of the Food Sanitation Act as to the fact that the Defendant, while running the so-called “tweet block” business, divided part of time expenses. However, the Defendant denied the facts charged in the instant case that there was no employee’s act of arranging sexual traffic against unspecified customers or dividing the profits therefrom.

B. According to the evidence mentioned below, although the defendant seems to have been actually aware of the sexual traffic of female employees, even if the business trip of female employees did not lead to sexual traffic, and in order to be a broker for sexual traffic, at least to be a broker for sexual traffic, there should be no involvement between the parties who intend to engage in sexual traffic, and there should be an arrangement to the extent that it could be possible for them to engage in sexual traffic between the parties concerned even if they did not intervene any more.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8808 delivered on February 17, 2005, etc.). C.

The evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in this case is that the defendant forced, solicits, and mediates commercial sex acts by taking the personal conditions of customers.

arrow