logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.12.12 2013노1705
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. Whether the Defendant was aware of the fact that sexual traffic had been provided is a doctor and was wholly delegated to the Director of the Management Office of the instant building. Therefore, he was unaware of the fact that the instant building had been occupied in D with the fifth and sixth floors of the instant building.

On August 23, 2012, the Defendant received a notice from the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station that D was under police investigation on August 23, 2012, and that D would not engage in illegal business, such as sexual traffic, in the future. On the one hand, the police control alone could not terminate the lease contract. On January 9, 2013 and February 16, 2013, the Defendant sent a letter proving that the lease contract would be terminated if D continues to be exposed to illegal business, such as sexual traffic, on two occasions on the other hand.

In light of these circumstances, it is true that the defendant did not know that there was an act of arranging sexual traffic in D.

In addition, the crime of this case is established only when the act of providing a building is performed with the clear knowledge of the fact that it is provided for sexual traffic.

In addition, the defendant received a report from J around 2005 that he is engaged in sexual traffic, and there was suspicion that young women in D are not in contact or similar behavior, but did not terminate the lease relationship because he was unaware of the fact that sexual traffic was conducted.

In addition, around August 2008, D knew that D's business owner had changed F to F, only was engaged in the business of a normal massage place, and did not know all of the fact that D had engaged in the business of arranging sexual traffic.

Although the defendant had been supposed by J during the late 2009 or the first half of 2010, he was supposed by the defendant while engaging in illegal commercial sex acts in D, it was only impossible after a considerable period of time from the enforcement date.

arrow