logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.06.23 2015노2931
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and the defendant suspended the provision of a building by notifying E of the termination of a lease contract on two occasions, etc. In other words, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1 Determination of the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles 1) Article 2(1)2(c) of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts (hereinafter “act of providing a building with knowledge of the fact that the building was offered for commercial sex acts”), the term “act of providing a building,” includes a case where the lessee was unable to know of the fact that the building was offered for commercial sex acts at the time of the lease, but he was aware of the fact that the building was offered for commercial sex acts after notification to an investigation agency after the termination of the lease contract, and expressed his intention to demand the return of possession, without suspending the act of providing it (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6297, Aug. 25, 2011).

① From July 2013 to July 30, 2015, E leased a building from the Defendant and operated the said building as a broker for commercial sex acts. From November 19, 2013, around May 12, 2014, around March 3, 2015, E was controlled four times in total, including around July 30, 2015.

② On November 25, 2013 and May 19, 2014, the Defendant was notified by the chief of the police station in the Changwon-gu, Seoul Special Self-Governing Province that E had operated a commercial sex intermediary business in the above building. On December 2, 2013 and around May 23, 2014, the Defendant sent E with a certificate of contents stating the termination of a lease agreement and the request for delivery, etc., but, except for this.

arrow