(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.08.11 2017노1659 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.08.11 2017노1659

성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매)등

Text

The judgment below

The defendant's appeal against the remainder other than the compensation order with respect to the applicant D.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The compensation order pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is a system that specifies the amount of direct property damage suffered by the victim by the criminal act of the defendant and intends to order the compensation of the defendant only in cases where the scope of the compensation liability of the defendant is clear. According to Article 25(3)3 of the same Act, if the existence or scope of the compensation liability of the defendant is unclear, the compensation order shall not be issued, and in such cases, the court shall dismiss the application for compensation by its decision as prescribed by Article 32(1) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do945 delivered on June 11, 1996). According to the records, the applicant D has made a statement to the effect that "the defendant lent 30 million won to the defendant and returned 10,122,000 won among them to the defendant" (see Supreme Court Decision 205Da27589 delivered on June 25, 2016).

The fact that the statement (Evidence No. 481 of the same evidence record) and the compensation applicant D submitted to the court of the original instance, also stated that “the Defendant’s loaned KRW 300,000,000 (which appears to be a clerical error in the book) to the court of the original instance, would not exceed KRW 100,000,000 (which appears to be a clerical error in the book)” (the court record No. 66).

However, since there is no evidence to know how 10,122,00 won paid by the defendant was appropriated for the principal and interest of the above loan obligation against D, it is evident that the defendant still is liable for 30,000 won for D.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, in this case, it is against the above D.

참조판례

-대법원 1996. 6. 11. 선고 96도945 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.12.14 2018노3171

-인천지방법원 2018.09.05 2018노2069

-부산지방법원 2016.02.04 2015노4136

-대구지방법원 2018.04.20 2017노959

-창원지방법원 2018.06.14 2018노276