logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.08.19 2014고정2150
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from April 10, 2014 to June 23:00, 2014, up to 171.6 square meters in the commercial sex acts business places with the trade name of Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul and the Defendant’s operation “E”, employed female employees F, G, etc., by having six rooms in a room of 171.6 square meters. From the unspecified number of male customers who found the place, the Defendant received KRW 50,000 to KRW 80,000 from the unspecified number of male customers who found the place, 15,000 to KRW 35,00,00 from the female employees, and had female employees take the same sexual intercourse with each other, such as leading female employees to their bad faith with their sexual desire, leading them to their ties, and leading them to their circumstances.

Accordingly, the defendant committed commercial sex acts such as arranging commercial sex acts.

The Defendant is a person who operates a sexual traffic business establishment under the trade name of "E" from the H and the 2nd floor of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

피고인은 2014. 7.경 위 업소에서 컴퓨터를 이용하여 ‘십구닷컴, 섹밤’ 등 성매매 광고 인터넷 사이트에 위 ‘E’이라는 업소의 상호와 예약 전화번호, 속옷차림의 여성 사진, 여성종업원 프로필 등을 게시하고, 광고문구로 ‘모든 매니저 올탈의, B.J, 올터치, A코스 - 90,000원, 고감도터치와 버블샤워마사지 마무리, 모든 매니저는 입장 후, 바로 탈의합니다!’ 등 위 성매매 업소를 홍보하는 사진과 글을 게시하였다.

As a result, the defendant advertised business places where commercial sex acts or arrangement of commercial sex acts are conducted.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness I’s legal statement includes the contents of the Defendant, G, and F’s statement among the witness I’s legal statement. However, according to the records of the instant case, G appears to have already left Korea on January 18, 2015, and F deemed to have returned to the People’s Republic of China, the mother country. As such, G, F, the person making the original statement, is deemed not to have been able to make a statement in this court, and the Defendant, G, and F’s statement recognized by the witness I’s legal statement.

arrow