logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.04 2013노3438
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the summary of the grounds for appeal (as the defendant has been issued a summary order of a fine of one million won due to a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic concerning the same criminal facts as the facts charged in this case, it shall be sentenced to a judgment of acquittal on the defendant)

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the judgment of the court of the first instance on them are as follows: “The Defendant conspired with B, and the Defendant, from September 17, 2012 to September 21, 2012, “E” in the trade name of “E” located on the first floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul, intended commercial sex acts by having female employees D et al. engage in sexual intercourse with the said male, thereby mediating commercial sex acts.” As to this, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of two million won.

B. According to the evidence 1 and 2 submitted in the judgment of the court at this court, the Defendant: (a) in the case of the Seoul Central District Court 2012 high-level 30772, the Defendant: (b) “The Defendant received 1.5 million won monthly salary from B from September 17, 2012 to September 21, 2012 at a commercial sex business establishment of the name “E” located in the first floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu Seoul, for the so-called “E head of night office”; (c) was in charge of preparation for business, guidance for customers, management of sexual traffic women, and collection of money; (d) received cash from the male customers who visited the business establishment; and (e) had them sexual intercourse with the above customers; and (e) the Defendant received a summary order on September 13, 2012, which became final and conclusive on December 14, 2012.”

arrow