본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
창원지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노2475

성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor with the summary of the grounds for appeal, despite the fact that the defendant knew that B would provide the building with the knowledge that B would operate a sexual traffic business establishment, or at least B knew that B would use the building as a sexual traffic business establishment, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The lower court determined as follows based on the relevant legal principles and the evidence adopted by the lower court: (a) when the Defendant was notified of a sexual traffic business establishment on March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff was leasing the instant commercial building to H; (b) even after H, the lessee was changed three times or more; and (c) when B started to engage in sexual traffic intermediary business, two years and seven months after the date of the above notification; (b) After the above notification, the Defendant did not receive the notification of sexual traffic; (c) the operation of the marina business establishment itself does not prohibit the law; and (d) the operation of the instant commercial building is not considerably different from the interior appearance of the instant commercial establishment, such as the interior language, when the Defendant was notified of a sexual traffic business establishment on March 20, 2014; and (d) when compared with the deposit or monthly rent of the instant commercial building, there was no intention to provide the instant commercial building to the Defendant.

For reasons that it cannot be seen, the defendant was acquitted.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with relevant legal principles and records, a thorough examination is conducted by the Defendant. As long as the lessee was replaced three times for two years and seven months after being notified of a sexual traffic business establishment, and the Defendant was not notified of other detection, the Defendant was aware that the instant commercial building was being used as a sexual traffic business establishment.

. cannot be considered.