logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.08.30 2013노1743
아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(알선영업행위등)등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles made it clear that the defendant should not have conducted the act of comparison from the beginning, there was no participation in option, and there was no expression prohibiting the act of similarity in the kiscation sign or guide book, and received written statements from most employees that he would not do the act of similarity. E merely determined the price by agreement with some customers and received the money by himself, and there was no payment for mediating the act of similarity, and it is difficult to conclude that it constitutes the act of similarity because there is no evidence about whether the other party caused the sexual satisfaction through raising the male hand of E or hand display, and it is difficult to see that the defendant arranged the act of similarity to E, even though it is difficult to see that it is difficult for the court below to see that there was no evidence about the other party's act of comparison, it is in violation of the rules of evidence to recognize the guilty of the charge of violation of the Act of the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (business Brokerage, etc.) and there is an error of misunderstanding the legal principles on the similarity or sexual trafficking.

B. The reason why the act of comparison is committed in a public prosecutor(s) room is to attract customers, and it is not possible to harm the act of similarity by the choice of customers, and the key fee includes the cost of the act of similarity which is an economic interest. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that M, a female employee of "D" operated by the court below, recognized that M, a female employee of the defendant, has engaged in the act of similarity to male grandchildren, but it is not enough to support that M separately obtained money or property profit in addition to the cost of the above act of similarity.

arrow