logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.11.06 2014노884
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant was only engaged in sexual traffic between a entertainment drinking club loan operated by himself and a customer, without actively arranging such fact, and there was no intention to mediate, and thus, this cannot be deemed as an act of sexual traffic brokerage. Therefore, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “act of arranging sexual traffic” under Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. means that the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic make good offices or facilitates convenience. Thus, in order to act as a broker for sexual traffic, the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic should not have to actually engage in or face with each other. It is sufficient that the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic by linking the intentions of the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic and even if there is no involvement of the broker, there is only an arrangement to the extent that it can be done between the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic.

On the other hand, in cases where commercial sex acts are committed only with commercial sex acts or with commercial sex acts as well as business mainly aimed at engaging in commercial sex acts, the act of arranging commercial sex acts constitutes "act of arranging commercial sex acts, etc." and the perception of the crime of arranging commercial sex acts is sufficient without the need to recognize the specific contents of the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do16361, Feb. 27, 2014; 2010Do9172, May 26, 2011). However, the Defendant’s partial statement in the lower court, E, I, and G investigative agencies, copies of books, etc.

arrow