The meaning of inducement for profit;

In the crime of inducement for profit, the term "induction" means the movement of a person from one's free living relationship or protection relationship to one's own or a third party's factual control. However, if the victim seems to have been in the form of free will, but the victim could not agree to work as a woman even after entering a female, the victim should be deemed to have been transferred to the actual control of the offender regardless of whether the victim had the opportunity to flee or not.

Article 288(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Busan District Court (86 High Court Decision 542,966)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

170 days, out of the period of detention before a sentence of the judgment below, shall be included in the above sentence.

The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is as follows: first, the victim non-indicted 1, 2, and the police, the prosecutor's office, and the prosecutor's office of the non-indicted 3's accomplice in collusion with the non-indicted 3, 4, 5, and 6 in order to attract the victims who tried in Daegu amusement park to Busan for sale at his will; however, the court below did not have sufficient evidence to regard the defendant's participation in the charges of profit inducement for the non-indicted 1; even if the defendant was involved in the above crime, the above victim could not be deemed to have been transferred from Daegu to Busan, or from the relation of free living or protection to Busan, under the factual control of the defendant or the third party; second, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that this could not be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment; second, the decision of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding of facts; second, the defendant's employment penalty for the non-indicted 3's employment.

First, in light of the records on the grounds of appeal for mistake of facts by the defendant, the health account and the various evidences duly examined and adopted by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts charged by the defendant against the victim non-indicted 2, and no other errors are found in the process of fact-finding by the court below concerning this point. Thus, the appeal by the defendant is groundless.

Next, we examine the prosecutor's errors of facts and reasons for appeal.

First of all, the records reveal that Nonindicted Party 1 was the victim of the instant case, and that Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 1 et al. were the victim of the instant case, and that Nonindicted Party 4 et al. were the victim of the instant case, and they were able to look back to the victim of the instant case on May 18, 198, and that Nonindicted Party 5 et al. were the victim of the instant case, and that Nonindicted Party 5 et al. were the victim of the instant case’s accident, and that Nonindicted Party 4 et al. were the victim of the instant case’s accident, and that Nonindicted Party 5 et al. were the victim of the instant case’s accident, and that Nonindicted Party 4 et al. were the victim of the instant case’s accident, and that Nonindicted Party 5 et al. were the victim of the instant case’s accident, and that Nonindicted Party 5 et al. were the victim of the instant case’s accident, and that Nonindicted Party 2 was the victim of the instant accident.

문제는 피해자 공소외 1을 대구에서 부산까지 유인하는 과정에서 피고인도 가담되어 있었느냐 하는 점인데, 이 점에 관하여는 피고인이 검찰(86 형제 40666호 수사기록 25장의 뒷면) 및 원심 제5회공판에서 피고인은 공소외 5, 4가 피해자들을 처음 꾀어낸 1986.5.18. 23:00경 대구 북구 대현동(피고인의 주소지이기도 하다)소재 (상호 생략)여관에서 공범 공소외 3, 5, 4, 6을 만나 피해자들을 부산의 윤락업소에 창녀로 팔아 넘기기로 공모한 사실이 있다고 자백하고 있으며, 위 자백진술이 허위로 이루어졌다고 볼만한 아무런 자료가 없고, 한편 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인은 대구에 거주하면서도 두번 모두 부산까지 내려가 피해자들이 창녀로 취업함에 동의하지 않을 수 없도록 소란을 피운 점은 위와 같은 자백을 됫받침하기에 충분하다 할 것이다.

In addition, inducement in the crime of inducing a false profit means moving a person from a free living relationship or protection relationship with him/herself or a third party by means of deception or suspicion to a third party. In this case, the victim seems to have been in accordance with his/her free will in the form of Busan. However, there is no reason to deem that the victim was detained in Busan (trade name omitted) and there is no reason to believe that the victim was detained in Busan (trade name omitted). However, in light of the series of circumstances, regardless of whether the victim had an opportunity to escape, the victim was transferred under the factual control of the defendant and the accomplice, regardless of whether the victim had an opportunity to escape.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the defendant participated in the crime of accomplices, and the victim has an opportunity to flee for the victim. Thus, the victim cannot be deemed to have been transferred to the actual control of the defendant and accomplices. Thus, the defendant was acquitted of the facts charged of the inducement for profit to the victim non-indicted 1. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or misunderstanding of the judgment, and it is obvious that this affected the judgment, and therefore, the prosecutor's appeal for objection is reasonable.

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the decision on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing is omitted, the decision of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is again rendered through pleading.

On July 13, 1984, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year for special larceny at the Daegu District Court, and was exempted from the execution of his remaining punishment for special amnesty on March 3, 1985 while serving in a Masan Prison;

1. In collusion with Nonindicted 3:

On May 2, 1986, at around 19:00, Nonindicted 7 (Inn, 27 years of age) was employed in prostitution, which is a business harmful to the public health or morality, and Nonindicted 3 was her driving, Nonindicted 7, in Taegu, and was moving Nonindicted 7 from Taegu to Busan. On May 3, 1986, Nonindicted 8 was introduced to employ Nonindicted 7,000 won in advance at around 750,000 won in advance at around 11:0 of the same month.

2. At around 23:00 on May 18, 1986, the defendant introduced the victim non-indicted 2 (V, 22 years old), and the non-indicted 1 (V, 22 years old), who had been playing in the same village amusement park located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, with Non-indicted 3, 6, and 4, to be accommodated in the (trade name omitted), and introduced the victim non-indicted 2 (V, 22 years old), and the non-indicted 1 (V, 22 years old) to be friendly. After the defendant was able to be accommodated in the (trade name omitted) in the (M, 6, 5, and 4 in Busan-gu, the victims were recruited to be a woman in the lele business located in Busan-gu, and the victim non-indicted 1 again promised to return to him, and once he returned to Korea, the victim non-indicted 1 was able to do so again;

A) At around 19:11:30 of the same month, Non-Indicted 5 sent to Non-Indicted 2 the victim Non-Indicted 4, "Non-Indicted 1 was playing in Busan as Non-Indicted 4. As such, our country also has agreed to move to a train in the Dong area around 12:00 of the day with the defendant, etc. at around 14:00 of the day and agreed to move to Busan as a place for a day. After the defendant and Non-Indicted 3 reached the above house, Non-Indicted 5 was sent to Non-Indicted 5,00 won at the above house, and Non-Indicted 5 did not receive the victim's money from Non-Indicted 4 to move to Busan as the victim's accomplice (the victim's 10th of the day, Non-Indicted 5 did not receive the money from Non-Indicted 4, and the victim's 10th of the day will not receive the money from Non-Indicted 5 to move to Busan. The victim's 10th of the day.

B) At around 20:00 of the same month, Non-Indicted 4 inducedd the victim Non-Indicted 1 to go on the part of Non-Indicted 2 for the purpose of finding it, Non-Indicted 4, who appeared in the Sorafa bank near the Daegu theater, which is the promise place, together with Non-Indicted 5, in order for Non-Indicted 2 to find out the situation where Non-Indicted 5 was located in Busan, and tried to find it in a false manner with Non-Indicted 5, and arrived at Busan as a train letter, and then arrived in Busan at around 21.04:00 of the same month with the defendant, etc., and agreed in advance with the defendant, etc., for the purpose of profit.

The summary of the evidence of the above facts constituting the crime as stated in Paragraph 2-b of the judgment below is evidence of the facts constituting the crime as stated in Paragraph 2-B of the judgment below, and except for adding the statement corresponding thereto of the defendant among the first trial records of the court below, the statement corresponding thereto in the fifth trial records of the court below, the statement corresponding thereto of the witness Non-Indicted 1 in the second trial records of the court below, the statement corresponding thereto of Non-Indicted 2 in the second trial records of the court below, the statement corresponding thereto of Non-Indicted 3 in the fourth trial records of the court below, and the statement corresponding thereto in part among the prosecutor's six trial records of the court below, each statement corresponding thereto among the prosecutor's interrogation records of the defendant against the non-indicted 1 prepared by the prosecutor and the judicial police assistant, and each statement statement of the non-indicted 1 and 2 as to the non-indicted 1 and the statement corresponding thereto, they

In the so-called "job placement" of the decision 1, Article 29 subparagraph 2 of the Employment Security Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the same Act, and Articles 288 (1) and 30 of the same Act are applicable. Since the fact that the Employment Security Act has been applied to the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the inducement of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the profit under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment shall be included within the period of the defendant.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)