logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2013.04.10 2012고단1908
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of thirty thousand won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 29, 2011, the Defendant leased 102, the first floor 102 underground of the building located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul. From June 2012 to September 3, 2012, the Defendant operated a commercial sex trafficking business establishment with the trade name “E” at the above store from June 201 to September 3, 2012, and provided shower facilities and the five rooms used for sexual traffic, and employed F and F female employees over the above period.

The defendant, who had found the above businesses during the above period, received 90,000 won per capita in return for the sex trafficking from the average male grandchildren of 1-2 per day who had found the above businesses, and assisted the sex trafficking by having female employees such as F et al. talk with the male grandchildren and sexual intercourse with them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect with respect to F or G;

1. Lease contract;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

1. Article 24 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., imprisonment and fines concurrently;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The execution of the sentence of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order is to be suspended, taking into account the size of the business establishment in this case, the period of business, the degree of profits from the business, the defendant's power, etc., and instead of collecting the profits from the crime in this case, it seems that the deprivation of economic benefits equivalent thereto is necessary

arrow