logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.06.07 2018노337
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the profit acquired by the Defendant from the crime of this case by mistake of fact is the remainder after deducting the details of cash deposit in the account in the name of the Defendant and the amount paid to the Defendant E, the lower court calculated the surcharge by calculating the surcharge based on the details of cash deposit in the account in the E account, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to the surcharge.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, 39920,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is consistent with the purport that ① Defendant and E consistently stated in the investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant paid money in return for the sexual traffic from E” was “the Defendant and E,” ② E stated to the effect that the amount deposited in the account of his Busan Bank is the money deposited once in the Defendant’s sexual traffic business establishment operating the Defendant, ③ total amount deposited in cash during the business period of E, ③ total amount of KRW 3920,000,000, and ④ gains accrued from the Defendant’s business activities during the above period, such as arranging sexual traffic, do not seem to bring about the above KRW 39,920,00,000,000,000,000 won, which shall be collected from the Defendant.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is reasonable for the court below to calculate the Defendant’s proceeds from the instant crime as KRW 3,920,000 on the basis of the amount deposited in cash in the account under the name of E and collect the proceeds therefrom. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below.

shall not be deemed to exist.

① The Defendant’s business period of sexual traffic establishments is from July 2016 to January 2018.

arrow