2016No2730 A. Violation of the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. Act (sexual traffic)

Mediation, etc.)

(b) A criminal escape;

(c) Abetting an offender;

(d) Violence;

(e) Damage to property;

1. A. b. d. e. A

Residence

Reference domicile

2. A. B

Residence

Reference domicile

3. A. (c. C.

Residence

Reference domicile

Both parties

Kim Jong-Hy, Lee Lee-young (each indictments), Lee Lee-young (each indictments), Lee Lee-young (trials)

Article 000 (Defense Counsel for Defendant A)

Attorney B and C 000 (For defendant B and C)

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Ma1087, 1768 (Joint Judgment) Decided September 27, 2016

November 29, 2016

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year, for two years and two months, for Defendant B, for one year and one year, for Defendant C.

(c)

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive for Defendant A.

To order Defendant A to provide community service for 200 hours.

Real estate listed in the separate sheet from Defendant B shall be confiscated. 1)

Defendant A’s KRW 4,00, 400 from Defendant A, KRW 44,748,960 from Defendant B, and Defendant C

19, 934, 963 Won shall be collected respectively.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional charges.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant A is merely a aiding and abetting offender.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, 3 years of probation, 200 hours of community service, 37, 684, 560 won of surcharge) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

1) misunderstanding of facts

The calculation of the surcharge by the court below is based on an erroneous factual relationship.

2) Legal principles

The confiscation of each real estate listed in the attached list violates the principle of proportionality.

3) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (2 years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection 37,684, 560 won) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C.

1) misunderstanding of facts

The calculation of the surcharge by the court below is based on an erroneous factual relationship.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (the suspended sentence of 3 years, additional collection of 15, 833, 316 won, 316 won) is too unreasonable.

D. Public prosecutor (an unreasonable sentencing decision)

The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B and C is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

1) Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A) The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, i.e., ① the operator of a sexual traffic business establishment managed Defendant A at the time of leaving the place of business. Defendant A stated that “A was in charge of receiving money from customers, giving guidance to customers, cleaning business sites, etc.” (see, e.g., 107 pages). ② Defendant A received benefits of 18, 233, 400 won from January 3, 2014 to November 5, 2015 (see, e.g., referring to 216 pages of the investigation record) from the Defendant 2 under the name of Defendant B’s mobile phone brokerage contract, referring to the fact that the Defendant C was in charge of conducting a commercial traffic business for a long period of time before he/she received money from the customers, and Defendant B was in charge of conducting a commercial traffic business under the name of Defendant B’s mobile phone brokerage contract.

B) Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

2) Determination on Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

A) It is recognized that Defendant A took part in the act of arranging sexual traffic for a long time, and that it is not good to commit the crime by allowing a criminal to escape through the means of committing unemployment.

B) However, considering that Defendant A was sentenced to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 1999, there was no previous conviction except for Defendant A who was sentenced to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, Defendant A was employed by Defendant B and C, and the operating income was divided between Defendant B and C, and Defendant A appears to have received the benefits, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and arguments, such as Defendant A’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive and background of the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

C) Accordingly, Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is reasonable.

B. Determination on the prosecutor, Defendant B, and C’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

1) It is recognized that Defendant B, C, who led to a confession and reflects on the crime.

2) However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant B, who was punished for the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, had the history of being punished for the violation of the Public Health Act twice; (b) Defendant C had the history of being punished for the violation of the Public Health Act once and twice; (c) sexual traffic arrangement was conducted over a long period of time in the instant building; (d) Defendant B, and C had a large amount of profit of 200 million won through the instant crime; and (e) Defendant B, and C had to go away from the legal network on the ground of fake unemployment even after the crackdown; and (e) other various factors, such as the age and environment of Defendant B, C, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, are deemed unfair.

3) Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion pointing this out is with merit, and Defendant B and C’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant A and the prosecutor is well-grounded, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be reversed, and the following decision shall be rendered after pleading (as long as the appeal by the defendant B and C is without merit, but the judgment of the court below shall be reversed by accepting the prosecutor's appeal, the appeal by the above defendants shall not be dismissed

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is the same as that of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

(a) Defendant A: Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging, etc. of sexual traffic, Article 30 of the same Act (the point of arranging sexual traffic), Article 151(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of attempting to commit a crime), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing property damage) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

B. Defendant B: Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment

(c) Defendant C: Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging, etc. of sexual traffic, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of arranging sexual traffic), Articles 151 (1), 31 of the Criminal Act (the point of instigating an offender) and selection of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A and C: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant A: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendant B: Articles 8(1)1 and 2 subparag. 2(b)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds

1. Additional collection:

Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc.

A. Defendant A: 4,003, 400 won received between April 3, 2015 and December 25, 2015

(b) Defendant B: 44, 748, 960 won [the same shall apply hereinafter] = [(1) + (2) + (2) ? 4,03, 400 won x 1/2, and 400 won ] 】 (The same shall apply hereinafter];

① ① The sales of card sales of 63, 784, 460 won between April 3, 2015 and December 25, 2015 ( = 51, 319, 660 won + 12, 464, 800 won)

② Cash sales from April 3, 2015 to December 25, 2015: 135,540,000 won ( = 106, 720,000 + 28,820,00 won)

(c) Defendant C: 19, 934, 963 won [[3] + (4) + (5/11 + 2, 303, 400 won] x 1/2]

3. Sales of card 16, 737, 565 won ( = 14, 570, 565 won + 2, 167, 00 won) between September 2, 2015 and December 25, 2015

(4) Cash sales from September 2, 2015 to December 25, 2015 ( = 58, 190, 190, 000 + 16, 180,000 won)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion on confiscation

Defendant B alleged that the confiscation of each of the real estate listed in the separate list (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) violates the principle of proportionality, but Defendant B purchased the instant building for KRW 370,00,00,000, out of the purchase price of KRW 10,000,000 (see, e.g., 348, the investigation record), ② The Industrial Bank of Korea established a mortgage of KRW 348,00,00 in the aggregate amount of KRW 30,000,00 in the instant building (see, e.g., 305, the investigation record) and KRW 40,000,00 from KRW 5,00,000, KRW 30,000 in the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”). However, Defendant B had been punished for violating the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Health; ④ Defendant B had been engaged in sexual traffic since KRW 10,007, May 10, 201.

1. Defendant A

Article 1 (Commercial Sex Acts)

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

In addition to the aggravated area (one year to three years) of No. 2 of the Act on the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the brokerage, etc. of commercial sex acts by means of business, receipt of consideration, etc.) for commercial sex acts subject to age or older.

[Person under Special Leave]

Long-term or organized crimes

Article 2 (Destruction of Crimes)

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

General Standard No. 1 (property damage, etc.)

[Special Mitigation]

If a penalty is not imposed (including a serious effort to recover damage), or a significant damage has been recovered;

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: one year to three years.

* With respect to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the act of arranging commercial sex acts), the property damage and the crime of escape of a criminal whose sentencing criteria have not been set, the lower limit shall be based on the lower limit of the sentencing range specified in the sentencing criteria for the crimes

【Determination of Sentence】

See Decision 2-A. see Decision 2-1

2. Defendant B

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

Type 2 (Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts by Means of Business, Receipt of Price, etc.) shall be aggravated (one year to three years).

[Person under Special Leave]

Long-term or organized crimes

【Determination of Sentence】

See Decision 2-b. Part 2

3. Defendant C.

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

In addition to the aggravated area (one year to three years) of No. 2 of the Act on the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the brokerage, etc. of commercial sex acts by means of business, receipt of consideration, etc.) for commercial sex acts subject to age or older.

[Person under Special Leave]

Long-term or organized crimes

* With respect to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes of aiding and abetting a criminal whose sentencing criteria have not been set for the crimes of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the act of arranging commercial sex acts, etc.), the lower limit shall follow the lower limit of the sentencing criteria for the crimes for

【Determination of Sentence】

See Decision 2-b. Part 2

Judges Sung-ho et al.

Judges Kang Jong-chul

Judges Hak-chan

1) Attacheds are omitted.

2) The tenant column includes the resident registration number of the defendant A in the tenant column.

3) At least from around October 2011, sexual traffic brokerage was conducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4030, Mar. 1, 201).

4) Attached 1.2.3.4. for the pertinent period as indicated in Attached 1.2.4, Defendant B’s card sales amounting to 51, 319, 660 won, cash sales amounting to 106, 720, 00 won.

Defendant C’s card sales are KRW 12, 464, 800, and cash sales are KRW 28, 820, and 00.

5) Defendant B and C’s defense counsel do not challenge the amount of benefits paid to A at the time of the conclusion of the party proceedings.

However, (in relation to this, it was refused by the full bench to examine A as a witness) the person before the pronouncement of the judgment.

On November 28, 2016, submitting a summary of oral proceedings, 90,000 won on September 11, 2015, 2015, and 1 million won on October 6, 2015, as stated in the 217th Statement of the Investigation Record, while submitting the summary of oral proceedings.

The plaintiff asserts that the payment was made to A. The plaintiff, the defendant, the defendant, the defendant, the defendant, the defendant, and the defendant, the defendant, the defendant, the defendant, the defendant,

In addition, even though 1,01, 700 won was paid as salary on October 5, 2015 (see e.g. 216 of the investigation record), the following:

Since it is not clear that the payment of KRW 1 million again was made under the name of salary on October 6, 2015, the above argument is received.

no ASEAN.

6) Attached 1.3. See Attached 1.3. Initial Defendant B and C’s defense counsel with respect to the portion settled by a card terminal in the name of C

The argument that it was not so alleged, but in the statement submitted on November 28, 2016, the summary of the argument was recognized (see Article 6 of the summary of the argument).

7) Attached 2.4. See Attached 2.4. ; the prosecution shall sell C between September 2, 2015 and December 25, 2015 (No. 842 pages, 843 of the investigation records);

844 See 84 Doesctrine (see 844 Doctrine), however, the entire sales between April 3, 2015 and December 25, 2015 are subject to additional collection.

It is reasonable to see as it is.

8) Defendant B and C’s defense counsel did not yield profits from the brokerage of commercial sex acts. The amount deposited by C as stated in Appendix 3.

It is alleged that the amount deposited in each account listed in attached Form 3. The statement in the investigation agency of C, i.e., the price of sexual traffic (investigation).

We cannot accept it because it is contrary to the record No. 827) and is fixed.

19) A received on October 15, 2015 1,001, 700 won + 1,301, 700 won received on November 5, 2015.

10) Defendant B’s defense counsel on November 28, 2016, the day immediately preceding the pronouncement of the judgment after the closure of pleadings at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial of the trial at the trial at the trial of the court at the trial at the time of O

201 In light of the fact that the price of 201, the size of which is 8m of 136.8m, is 660 million won when submitting the material related to 201,000 won

At the time, the author asserts that the market price of the building of this case reaches KRW 1,080, 656, and 000. In this case, the author argues that the building of this case reaches KRW 1,080,000, respectively.

The price of a heading room is assessed in various ways according to the factors of value formation, and thus the building of this case is assessed based on the above 201 market price.

Since it is difficult to readily conclude that the market price can be assessed, as well as the discovery of various evaluations as follows, the above-mentioned evaluation cases are found:

We do not accept the assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013 Matagi46552, Mar. 1, 201).

11) The period during which Defendant B was relieved of punishment by having another person carry out as unemployed week, shall be from October 13, 201 to April 2, 201, 1,267

It is a daily day, and the sales generated by arranging sexual traffic for 266 days from April 3, 2015 to December 25, 2015 are 199, 324, and 460.

Considering that the sales from October 13, 201 to April 2, 2015, 1, from April 2, 2015, 949, 413, and 875 won were generated on a simple basis for 267 days.

Defendant B’s unilateral assertion that the market price of the instant building is not less than KRW 700,000,000, was considered.

It is necessary to confiscate the building of this case.

Attached 1. The details of Defendant B sales ( Card) - The notice of the website shall be omitted.

Attached 2. Details of Defendant B sales (cash) - Posting on the website

Attached 3. Details of Defendant C sales ( Card) - Posting on the homepage of the Gu office is omitted.

Attached 4. Details of Defendant C Sales (cash) - Posting on the website