Defendant

Prosecutor

Enforcement Decree of the Republic of Korea

Attorney Nonindicted 4

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da5835-1 (Separation) Decided January 13, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant, in collaboration with Nonindicted Party 2, owned about 250 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) around October 2006, and provided Nonindicted Party 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court) with a lease deposit amounting to KRW 17,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, while the Defendant continued to lease the said building to Nonindicted Party 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court) after having been notified that the said building was provided as a place for sexual traffic around June 11, 2008, he was aware that sexual traffic occurred in the said building, despite being aware of the fact that the said building was being provided as a place for sexual traffic, on around October 27, 2008, the Defendant provided the said building to Nonindicted Party 1 (the aforementioned act of arranging sexual traffic was leased by means of a clerical error around October 27, 2008).

2. Judgment of the court below

According to the records, the defendant, upon the death of his father, was unable to sell rent, etc. to the non-indicted 3 after being succeeded to the building of this case to the non-indicted 1, who was in arrears after being leased the building to the non-indicted 3, and the non-indicted 1, who was ordered not to engage in illegal business, and the above building was leased to the non-indicted 17,00,000 monthly rent. At the time, the above defendant trusted and leased the above fact that the non-indicted 1 was entrusted with the title of the church in the church, and it is difficult to recognize that the above building was provided to the non-indicted 1,00,00 after being notified by the director of the Seoul Police Agency to the effect that the non-indicted 1, who was entrusted the above building to the non-indicted 1, 208, in light of the fact that the above building was used as the place for commercial sex acts, and that the above defendant did not want to again engage in illegal commercial acts from the non-indicted 1, but refused to sell the above non-indicted 2, 1, as well.

Therefore, the facts charged against the defendant constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Although the Defendant knew of the fact that the instant building was being provided as a sexual traffic place after June 11, 2008, he did not take adequate measures to prevent any further use of the said building as a sexual traffic place.

4. Judgment of the court of the trial

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant knew at the latest that the building of this case is being provided as a sexual traffic place by the Seoul Regional Police Agency around June 11, 2008, and that the building of this case is provided as a sexual traffic place at the latest, and the non-indicted 1, etc. continued to engage in sexual traffic brokerage business in the building of this case until October 27, 2008.

B. If the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent the use of the instant building as a sexual traffic place after becoming aware of the fact that the instant building was being provided as a sexual traffic place, it may be deemed that the instant building was provided upon knowing that it was provided for sexual traffic.

In light of the following facts, the lower court’s ruling and the first instance court’s ruling that Nonindicted 1’s construction of the instant building was lawfully adopted and investigated, and the Defendant inherited the instant building with Nonindicted 2 on or around November 196, and leased the instant building to Nonindicted 3 on or after the death of his father, Nonindicted 3 did not know that Nonindicted 1’s construction of the instant building was in arrears, and that Nonindicted 3 did not have been informed of the fact that Nonindicted 1’s construction of the instant building was not in compliance with the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, and that Nonindicted 1’s construction of the instant building was not in compliance with the first instance court’s order, and that Nonindicted 2’s construction of the instant building was not in compliance with the first instance court’s order to prevent the Defendant from being in compliance with the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution. However, the Defendant did not know that the instant building was in compliance with the Act on the Prevention of Commercial Sex Acts.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The Defendant, in collaboration with Nonindicted Party 2, owned a five-story building in size of about 250 square meters in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) provided the above building to Nonindicted Party 1 for rent at KRW 17,00,000 on monthly rent of KRW 300,000; (b) provided the said building to Nonindicted Party 1 by continuously leasing the said building to Nonindicted Party 1 until October 27, 2006; (c) provided that the said building was provided to a commercial place on June 11, 2008; and (d) knew that commercial sex acts took place in the said building, the Defendant provided the said building to Nonindicted Party 1 by continuously leasing it to Nonindicted Party 1.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant, non-indicted 1 and 5

1. The written statement of the defendant, the defendant, the interrogation protocol of the police officers against the non-indicted 1 and 5

1. Lease contract;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 19(1)1 and 2(1)2(c) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

It is good that there is no criminal record against the defendant.

However, the entire fiveth floor building of this case was leased to Nonindicted Party 1 and used as a place for sexual traffic, and the deposit (300,000,000) and monthly rent (17,00,000) under the lease contract of this case also reach a considerable amount, and even before the case, there were the enemy provided as a place for sexual traffic, etc., and other various circumstances, including the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, shall be comprehensively considered and sentenced to the same sentence as the order.

Judges Sung Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)