beta
Text
Defendant
A The part of the lower judgment against A pertaining to additional collection shall be reversed.
Defendant
A 28,390,000 won shall be collected.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on additional collection: The amount of additional collection calculated on the premise that the Defendant had earned criminal proceeds from the employment of H around November 21, 2016, but there was a business profit for the entire period of the crime. (ii) The amount of punishment that the lower court sentenced (10 months of imprisonment and fine KRW 10 million) is too heavy.
B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing): The punishment sentenced by the lower court (3 million won) is too heavy.
2. Judgment on Defendant A
A. Determination on the grounds of appeal 1) Whether a judgment of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the portion of additional collection is subject to additional collection, or recognition of the amount of additional collection, etc., based on evidence, but this is not related to the elements of a crime, and it does not require strict proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). According to the health records of this case and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (Interrogation of the prosecution records, etc. against the defendant), the following circumstances are as follows: ① the defendant mediates commercial sex acts from September 30, 2016 to January 12, 2017 to arrange commercial sex acts from around November 21, 2016, ② the defendant assisted commercial sex acts to H and had many customers from around November 21, 2016 to around October 21, 2016, the defendant had been working as an average customer from around 15, 2016.
“The average number of customers per day during the operation of the said forum” by the prosecutor again, and whether the average number of customers per day will be five.
The defendant will answer the question "....."
“The answer,” and (4) The Prosecutor’s answer based on the Defendant’s answer as above is from September 30, 2016 to January 12, 2017.