beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the judgment specified in paragraph (2) as to the argument emphasized by the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning of the court of first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. As to the fraud 1) The Defendant did not have received the Agricultural Cooperatives passbook and the Agricultural Cooperatives Card, which caused the Plaintiff to enter the supply cost by deceiving the Plaintiff. The Defendant merely received and kept the above Agricultural Cooperatives passbook and the Agricultural Cooperatives Card upon the Plaintiff’s request, on the ground that the Plaintiff was entering the original room in which the Plaintiff was living. Although the Defendant withdrawn money from the above passbook, it was withdrawn by the Defendant at the Plaintiff’s request, it was withdrawn by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the withdrawn money was used by the Plaintiff for his own sake. 2) As to the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. of Commercial Sex Acts (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.)
The plaintiff voluntarily entered into a sexual relationship with customers.
3) As to the offense of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.), C is a person who is divorced, and the Defendant did not commit this part of the crime in collusion with C. 4) As to confinement, there is no fact that the Defendant detained the Plaintiff.
The Defendant had the Plaintiff get the Plaintiff to leave and live in the main room in the operation of the Defendant, and had the Plaintiff operate the “fols” guards outside the inner room. However, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have detained the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no difficulty in opening the door within the “fols security system” operated, and the Plaintiff could have come out of the main room, and the mobile phone was used freely.
B. For a judgment 1 civil trial, it shall be binding on the finding of facts in the criminal trial.