logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.03.30 2015고단5547
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(성매수등)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On May 10, 2015, the Defendant promised to sell children’s sex by asking D(W, 14 years of age), E(n, 15 years of age) a child’s youth to “the 2.50,000 won in cash at the same place.” At around 02:00 of the same day, the Defendant promised to “the 3.50,000 won in cash” to “the 2.50,000 won in cash.” At around 02:0 of the same day, the Defendant recommended D, E, “Gur” located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Seoul, to the 305 room of “Gur” located in the Republic of Korea.

2. According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record of judgment, evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without a reasonable doubt that he/she was a child at the time when the defendant solicits D and E to sell sex at the time and place specified in the facts charged.

In short, there is no other evidence.

1. D and E have carried out the above fluencing of the title “the 20-year-old flusium 20 years old” in the above flucing case.

(2) The defendant and D or E shall have written statements of respect with each other when he/she holds events and when he/she takes part in the telecom.

3. When D or E enters a telecom, the master of the telecom did not verify the identification card.

④ D and E have stolen the money of the Defendant while showing the Defendant, but they have attached it to the Defendant at the underground parking lot of the Moel building.

D, in light of the statements in investigation agency or court, the Defendant and D, E, or E did not divide the following conversations with respect to their age at the time of hosting, or when they met in the hold room. Since D or E escaped from the hold room, in other words, after they came to the underground parking lot or the police, they made a specific conversation or statement on their age.

The decision is judged.

3. The facts charged with the conclusion do not have proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow