logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.10.10 2013고단1354
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. The Defendants conspired to commit the principal facts charged, from December 21, 2012 to March 14, 2013, engaged in arranging commercial sex acts by having 7 studs equipped with shower facilities at the “E” location under the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Underground, with seven studs equipped with shower facilities, employing employees F and G, receiving 180,000 won from male customers such as H, and allowing them to engage in sexual intercourse with female employees such as G.

B. Preliminary facts charged I and J have seven rooms equipped with shower facilities at a marina business establishment located in the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Underground from December 21, 2012 to March 14, 2013, with 180,000 won paid to male customers such as H, and made a business of arranging sexual intercourse with female employees such as G by having them receive 180,000 won.

From December 2012, the Defendants knew that the said I and J are arranging sexual traffic as above, they lent the registration name to the said I and J, and if the Defendants are under control, they agreed to undergo an investigation by the investigative agency as a unemployment, and provided customers with the said business during the said period.

After the Defendants’ control over the above establishment around March 14, 2013, Defendant B was falsely investigated on March 20, 2013 by the Seoul Gangseo Police Station that the Defendants operated the above establishment, and Defendant A appeared with I at the above police station around March 20, 2013 and was investigated by I to the police officer in charge of the investigation after being present at the above police station along with I and being investigated. Defendant A was conducted with a false investigation that Defendant A operated the above establishment, and made it easy for I and J to perform the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc.

2. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone as to the primary facts charged is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants conspired to commit the act of arranging sexual traffic for business as stated in the primary facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The witness K- for the preliminary facts charged.

arrow