logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.04.08 2015고단3503
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from November 15, 2013 to December 12, 2014, from February 23, 2015 to September 18, 2015, was equipped with five rooms in which the size of the area corresponding to 40 square meters from “E” to “E” was occupied by five rooms, and had female employees receive KRW 70,00 in return for sexual traffic from unspecified male customers, and had them have similar sexual intercourse with each other, thereby engaging in sexual traffic mediation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment of details of settlement of the card terminal devices registered at business places), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (specific reporting on additional collection charges);

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Mediation, etc. of elective sexual traffic concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 19 (2) 1 of the same Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, including the fact that he/she has been convicted of a

1. The amount additionally collected under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic: KRW 84,407,148, which deducts the amount equivalent to 1/2 paid to female employees among the amount of profit accrued from December 2013 to October 2014, KRW 168,814,296 (the defendant asserted any other calculation method in this court, but according to the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, he/she claimed the other calculation method in this court, but provided a half of the amount of money received to customers and employed.

As can be seen, we do not accept the statement “..........”

arrow