Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

United States of America

Oral iron

Ulsan District Court Decision 2005Ma961 Delivered on July 6, 2005

Each part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, by imprisonment for ten months, and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

The forty-one day of detention days before the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered shall be included in Defendant 1; the thirty-eight day shall be included in Defendant 2; and the three days shall be included in Defendant 3, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for three years for Defendant 1, and for two years for Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 from the date of the final judgment of this case.

Defendant 1 orders each community service for 120 hours to Defendant 2 and 80 hours to Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. against the Defendants is acquitted.

Grounds for Appeal and Determination

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) As to the violation of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution among the facts charged in the instant case

In fact, the Defendants loaned money to Nonindicted 1 et al. employed at entertainment establishments, but the loan was not used as a broker for the act of prostitution, and it was not provided on the premise that it was used for the same purpose. Further, the Defendants knew that the other employees of the other party knew at the time when the Defendants delivered the loan that they would belong to the second place of business (which means to move to a business for the sexual intercourse with the son). The above loan cannot be deemed as a broker for the act of prostitution stipulated in the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution. Since the loans received by the employees have almost been repaid or appropriated for the cost of living with food and clothing, the loan granted by the Defendants does not have any causal relationship with the mediation for the act of prostitution. Moreover, since there is no clear evidence that the Defendants did not have been provided with the money under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (Act No. 7196, Mar. 22, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(2) As to the violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users among the facts charged in the instant case

In the list of crimes (2) of the judgment of the court below, there are many duplicates or cancellations in advance by the parties concerned, and there are overlaps with (1) of the list of crimes, etc., which are different from the facts. Thus, the defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a crime of violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users, such as this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the court below acknowledged that the defendants committed the crime of violation of the Act on Prevention of Prostitution, etc. and the crime of violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users, and additionally collected the loan amount provided as a violation of the Act on Prevention of Prostitution, etc. under the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

Defendant 1 lives in a married apartment after mixing with wife, and Defendant 2 operates the main place with wife, but is very difficult due to depression. Defendant 3 is an unmarried parent's death. Defendant 3 is no longer likely to be involved in the same crime since the Act on the Prevention of Commercial Sex Acts, etc. came into force, and the Defendants are in depth of their mistake, considering all circumstances, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant 1: 6: probation period of one year and six months; probation period of three years; probation period of one year and one hundred and sixty hours; Defendant 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years; probation period of one year and three years; probation period of one hundred and twenty hours; Defendant 3: suspended sentence of imprisonment for August 2; suspension of execution of execution of sentence of two years; community service work hours; Defendant 80 hours; Defendants 2.9 billion won and 8 billion won for each of the Defendants) is unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) As to the violation of the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act and the collection of additional dues therefrom

(A) Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

Of the facts charged of this case, the summary of violation of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution against the Defendants is as follows: “Defendant 1, 2, and 3 conspireds with Co-Defendant 1, 2, etc. to find employment in the 3 entertainment tavern operated by Co-Defendant 1, 2, etc. of the original trial and interview with female employees who wish to find employment upon the request of Co-Defendant 1, 2, etc. to provide employment advance payment, and provide employment advance payment, and directly keep the above main place of business, revenues, seals, etc. in order to secure the claim, and have them take charge of the above joint Defendant 1 and 2, while managing the operating fund, and even if they did not provide land or buildings to Co-Defendant 1, 2, etc. of the original trial, the lower court was found to have provided the above money to Co-Defendant 2, 200,000 won by having the above joint Defendant 1 and 2,000,000 won of employment advance loan from the above Defendant 2,000.

(B) Judgment of the court below

1) In full view of the overall evidence duly admitted and adopted by the lower court, the Defendants jointly engaged in credit business and jointly leased money as stated in the list of crimes (1) to entertainment tavern employees upon the request of Defendant 1 and 2, who are joint defendants 1 and 2 of the lower court, who are the owners of entertainment tavern business. The Defendants were aware that the employees of entertainment taverns who borrowed money at the time were able to leap with so-called 2 vehicles. The Defendants are sufficiently recognized that the Defendants received the principal and interest of the above loans from the employees of entertainment tavern business, who are joint defendants 1 and 2 of the lower court, who are the owners of entertainment tavern business.

2) The prosecutor indicted the above facts charged by applying Article 25(1)3 and 25(1)2 of the former Act to the aforesaid facts charged. As such, the prosecutor examines whether the Defendants who lent money in the name of prepaid to the entertainment tavern employees is a person provided for in Article 25(1)3 of the former Act.

Article 25 (1) 3 of the former Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act provides that "a person who provides money, land, or building with the knowledge of the fact that he/she is used for the crime of subparagraph 1 (a person who provides a place for prostitution in business) or subparagraph 2 (a person who arranges to do so in business)" shall be punished. The above penal provision provides that a person who provides a place for prostitution or assists in doing so for business purposes, i.e., a person who provides a place for prostitution and who provides a place for prostitution and who provides it for business purposes, should be interpreted as a penal provision punishing a person who provides it directly related to prostitution, land, or building. Even in cases where it is deemed that the purpose of his/her business is to engage in prostitution mediation, etc., even if the purpose of his/her business is not a place of prostitution or a brokerage for prostitution, and it is not a person who provides it to a person who provides it under the pretext of providing it, or who provides it for rent it under the pretext of money without permission or punishment, and it is not a person who provides it with money for sale or punishment.

On the other hand, in light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the above facts are sufficient to view that the defendants met the elements of Article 25 (1) 3 of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc., and there is no other evidence to recognize it differently. The above facts are not sufficient to deem that the defendants met the elements of the elements of the establishment of an entertainment drinking house under Article 25 (1) 3 of the former Act.

3) Thus, there is no sufficient evidence to find the Defendants guilty of violation of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. among the facts charged in this case. Therefore, the collection under the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment premised on the premise that the charges of violation of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. are guilty is without merit. The judgment of the court below which differs from this, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) As to the violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, since the defendants did not register credit business with the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor under the jurisdiction of Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor and lent money to the non-indicted 3, etc. as shown in the annexed crime list (2) of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below which held the defendants liable to commit a crime of violating the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users, is just, and there is no discovery of any mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment below, and therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion

B. Sub-committee

Therefore, although the Defendants’ assertion as to the violation of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business and the Protection of Financial Users among the facts charged in this case is without merit, the assertion as to the violation of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. among the facts charged in this case and the assertion as to the collection of additional dues therefrom are with merit, and the court below rendered a single sentence including the above acquittal portion, and thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained without

3. Conclusion

If so, this court reverses the part of the judgment below against the Defendants under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and decides as follows through pleading.

Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months with prison labor for violating the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act at the branch of the Seoul District Court on June 7, 2000; Defendant 2 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years with prison labor for the same crime at the Ulsan District Court on January 9, 2001; Defendant 2 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years with prison labor for the same crime; Defendant 2 of the original judgment was sentenced to a fine of five million won with the same crime at the same court on October 15, 2004; Defendant 2 of the lower judgment was sentenced to a fine of five million won with the same crime from March 2002 to January 2003; Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 of the said entertainment tavern, from around January 3, 2003, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 of the said entertainment tavern operated by the said other person; Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 of the said entertainment tavern operated by the said other person.

1. Defendant 1, 2, and 3 did not file for registration of credit business with the competent Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor in collusion;

around December 3, 2002, loans totaling KRW 222,8.5 million from that time to March 23, 2004, including loans of KRW 30,000,000 to Nonindicted 3 from the Ulsan-gu (detailed number omitted) Cuber's office from that time to that of March 23, 2004, including loans of KRW 222,8.5 million in total from that time to that of March 23, 2004;

2. Defendant 1 in collaboration with Co-Defendant 1 and 2 of the lower court’s joint Defendant 1:

On July 2002, when the victim non-indicted 2 (n, 21 years of age) and non-indicted 4 (n, 21 years of age) who worked as an employee at the main point of the above 3 places of police officers did not repay the prepaid amount and came to know the whereabouts of the victims through Non-indicted 5, etc. after the escape.

On October 16, 10 of the same year, at around 07:00, at the 07:00, the defendant 1's above non-indicted 4 was found in the Yeong-dong's dwelling area, the new world Hez 501 and the non-indicted 2 of the above non-indicted 501, saying, "I would know whether I would have known that I will be hidden," and the victim 1's co-defendant 1 will move back to the back of the XG car, and let the above non-indicted 2 communicate the victim to the non-indicted 4 and let the above non-indicted 4 enter the above studio in the above 10:0 on the same day, the above non-indicted 4 was placed on the back seat of the non-indicted 1's driving Yok-dong's office on the same day, and detained the victims for the above monthly scook's office on the same day.

3. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 jointly with the co-defendant 2 and 1 of the lower judgment:

가. 같은 달 18.경 피해자 공소외 2, 4가 다른 업소에 취업하여 선불금을 변제하겠다고 약속하고 대구로 갔다가 도망을 간 후 같은 달 30. 울산지방검찰청에 위와 같은 피해사실을 신고하는 고소장을 접수하자 피고인 피고인 2, 원심 공동피고인 원심공동피고인 1, 2는 피해자들을 찾으러 대구로 가 위 피해자들을 알고 있던 공소외 “샤샤(성명불상 남자)”를 통해 피해자들을 대구 크라운호텔 부근 커피숍으로 유인하도록 한 후

On November 19, 199, around 23:30 of the same year, the above non-indicted 2 and 4 were put to the back seat of the defendant 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 6 (n, 22 years old) and the above non-indicted 5 (n, 20 years old) were put to the back seat of the defendant 2's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 6 (n, 22 years old) and the above non-indicted 5 (n, 20 years old) were put to the PC located in Pyeongtaek-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-gu, and the above non-indicted 5 and No. 4 were placed on the above non-indicted 5 and No. 4 were placed in the above non-indicted 1's co-defendant 1's car and the defendant 1's co-defendant 6 was born to the victims of the new wall' office, and the defendant 1 urged the victims to discharge his obligation within the defendant 2's office within the same year.

B. On the 23th day of the same month, the above non-indicted 2 and 4 escaped from the above bendel room 201 to the window by pressing, and with respect to the case accused by the above non-indicted 2, etc. on the 28th day of the same month, the non-indicted 1 and the defendant 2 of the court below's co-defendant 1 and the defendant 2 from the police officer belonging to the Ulsannam Police Station on the 28th day of the same month to the court below's co-defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 of the court below's co-defendant 2 were asked to appear on the 11th day of the same month, and they were asked

On November 30, 30:00 of the same year, the victim non-indicted 5, as well as the victim non-indicted 5, sent the same attitude that, if you refuse to complete by saying, “I will only use it as you will do,” and by threatening the victim to commit any harm to the victim's life, body, etc., the part on the "--(Omission)-2 shall not be forced, and the above victim shall not be forced to go further, and the president shall not be forced to go further, and -- (as)-(as)--(as)---(as we have prided in the usual PC with pride and pride, the president shall go in his own way to go together with him to pay his future debts, and the president shall be forced to go out to go up with the agreement of the debtor, etc. who was on the same occasion, without any obligation of the non-indicted 4 and 2-U.S.(hereinafter referred to as “I will be omitted.”).

The summary of the evidence against the Defendants is the same as the relevant column of the lower judgment, and thus, it is cited by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: Articles 19(1)1 and 3 of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business and the Protection of Financial Users; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of unregistered Credit Business; each choice of imprisonment); Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act (each night and joint confinement; each choice of imprisonment); Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 324 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of coercion at night and by night)

Defendant 3: Article 19(1)1 and Article 3 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users; Article 30 of the Criminal Act ( point of unregistered Credit Business and Selection of Imprisonment);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the aggravated punishment for each concurrent crime committed on the basis of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act with the largest punishment and punishment among each crime on the market)

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of each Criminal Code (Consideration, considering that the defendants reflect in depth the mistake, and again, they do not commit the same mistake as the crime of this case)

1. Social service order;

Defendant 1 and 2: Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of violation of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. against the Defendants is as stated in the grounds of appeal and judgment 2. A. (1) (A) but this constitutes a case where there is no proof of the crime as seen in the grounds of appeal and judgment 2. A. (1) (b) and thus, the Defendants are acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges High-Level (Presiding Judge)