logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.07 2019노3633
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (no more than 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) 50 million won is the amount of money under a contract concluded and paid before commercial sex acts take place. Thus, it is difficult to view it as the property derived from criminal proceeds or criminal proceeds. The judgment of the court below which sentenced the forfeiture of the right to claim the return of the lease deposit is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles. (2) The sentence imposed by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter “Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment”) is applicable.

Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (limited to the act of providing funds, land, or buildings despite being aware of the fact that they are provided for sexual traffic among the acts of arranging sexual traffic) provides for “funds or property related to a crime under Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic” as one of the “criminal proceeds” under the said Act.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, to operate a sexual traffic business establishment as stated in its reasoning, the Defendant paid the said lease deposit by setting the deposit amount of KRW 50 million on January 8, 2019, KRW 300,000,000 monthly rent, and KRW 3 million on January 8, 2019 from January 8, 2019 to January 7, 2021.

According to the above facts, since the defendant provided funds to sexual traffic while knowing the fact that he was provided with sexual traffic, he was engaged in the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc., the above lease deposit repayment claim constitutes funds or property that can be forfeited as criminal proceeds under Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Act on the Regulation

Therefore, the defendant.

arrow