logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.20 2015고단5749
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding 5,00,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a commercial sex trafficking business with the trade name "C" in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Btel 712.

around 17:00 on June 10, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 140,00 from D at the said sexual traffic business establishment, and arranged for the sexual intercourse with E, a female of the said business establishment, as well as engaging in the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. from June 6, 2015 to June 10, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect with respect to E or D;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of an alternative sentence of imprisonment and the concurrent imposition of a fine (Article 24 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Intermediation of types 2 (such as brokerage, etc. of commercial sex acts by giving and receiving, etc.) (one to three years) in the area of aggravation (one year) (one year and three years), advertisement character or high radio wave of the types of commercial sex acts subject to 19 years of age or older;

2. Even though the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine of five million won for the same crime on March 24, 2015, the following facts are small in scale, and the period of the instant recidivism was shorter than the period of the business, and the Defendant rendered a judgment as per the disposition on the same grounds, as long as the period of the instant recidivism was shorter than the period of the business.

arrow