beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants did not commit any act identical to the entries in the facts charged.
In other words, even though Defendant A operated the “J” entertainment establishments and “H” entertainment establishments, Defendant B did not arrange the commercial sex acts of female employees or sell the remaining shares by reuse of them. Defendant C did not assist Defendant A in each of the above crimes at the above “J” entertainment establishments, and Defendant D and E did not engage in commercial sex acts at each of the above entertainment establishments.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, Defendant C: fine of KRW 4 million, Defendant D, and E) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, prior to the judgment on ex officio as to the part of confiscation of Defendant A.
The court below decided to confiscate the seized evidence Nos. 8 through 11 from Defendant A.
Confiscation may be imposed only on things not belonging to a person other than an offender (Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act). Since confiscation is interpreted to include an accomplice, a criminal may be confiscated not only on his/her own property but also on the things owned by his/her accomplice (Supreme Court Decision 2000Do745 Decided May 12, 200, etc.). However, according to the records of this case, the records of this case are confiscated on September 17, 2014 at the “J” entertainment station, respectively. As evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the owner, possessor, and presenter of evidence Nos. 10 and 11 are Defendant D, and the owner, possessor, and presenter of evidence No. 10 and 11 are Defendant E, and otherwise, the above Defendants transferred or renounced the ownership of each of the seized property to Defendant A.
There is no evidence to determine the person, and Defendant D and E cannot be viewed as an accomplice in the crime of arranging sexual traffic of Defendant A.
Therefore, except the defendant A.