beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair in sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (in addition to KRW 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for August, year of suspended sentence of imprisonment for year, year of suspended sentence of imprisonment for year 1, year of suspended sentence of year, year 21,963,00) is too unreasonable
2. The circumstances, etc. recognized by the Defendant, who was the first offender, and all of the instant crimes committed by the investigative agency are recognized.
However, the defendant's crime is not limited to promoting the social harm that enables the commercialization of sex, but to provide the women with an economic profit motive, thereby impairing their character and character and inducing the male to deviate from legal ethics, and there is a little possibility of criticism, and there is a small scale of business such as employing about 10 women between about 1 year and 1 year.
shall not be deemed to exist.
In addition, considering the defendant's age, sexual conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the Defendant’s argument that the sentencing is unfair is without merit (the Defendant used income acquired from the operation of a sexual traffic business establishment as indicated in the judgment below for operating expenses of the above business establishment. Therefore, the lower court’s argument that the collection of all of the above income is unfair, but the purpose of the collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts is to deprive the Defendant of unlawful profits arising from the act in order to eradicate the act, such as arranging commercial sex acts. Therefore, the cost of taxes, etc. paid by the Defendant in the course of engaging in the act, such as arranging commercial sex acts, is only one way to consume the money and valuables acquired in return for the brokerage of commercial sex acts or to justify his act, and thus, it is not necessary to deduct it from the additionally collected amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do7194, Aug. 20, 2014). 3. This part of the Defendant’s argument is without merit.