Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Dried iron metal

Attorney Kang Jin-ok (National Ship for Defendant 1)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2003Ma1522 Delivered on July 13, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting each of 50,000 won into one day.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, namely, the statements made by Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the investigation agency and the communication confirmation data reply between Nonindicted 3 and the Defendants, even if all of the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the lower court acquitted the Defendants by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence and thereby acquitted them

2. Determination

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 is a person who runs an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of the above non-indicted 2's (name omitted) store in Daejeon Pream-gu (Seongdong omitted). Defendant 2 received the above non-indicted 1's trade name from the same (name omitted 2) store in the same (name omitted), and Defendant 3 runs an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of the (name omitted 3) store in the same (name omitted 3) store. Defendant 1 is a business of running the above (name omitted 1), and Defendant 1 entered the above non-indicted 1's name in the above (name omitted 1), and made the above non-indicted 1 enter the above non-indicted 2's trade name in the name of the above guest under the name of the above non-indicted 3, who is the head of the sidewalk business, and made the above non-indicted 2 to enter the above entertainment act in the name of the above guest under the pretext of the name of the above non-indicted 2's contact with the above guest under the trade name of the above 200.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted the Defendants on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude the Defendants guilty of each of the instant charges without any reasonable doubt solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, on the ground that it is difficult for them to believe that the statement of Nonindicted 1’s written statement by the police as to Nonindicted 2, the copy of Nonindicted 2’s written statement by the police, the copy of the police protocol by Nonindicted 4, the protocol of interrogation of the police suspect by Nonindicted 3, the protocol of interrogation of

C. Judgment of the court below

(1) The credibility of evidence

(A) The statement of Nonindicted Party 1’s written statement in the police officer’s written statement is reliable in the following sense.

1) Nonindicted 1 said that there is no fact that Nonindicted 3 was paid prepaid at the (trade name omitted) sidewalk of Nonindicted 3’s operation, and that there was no fact that he was forced to leap, and thus, there is no reason to make any particular statement against Nonindicted 3 or the Defendants.

2) While Nonindicted Party 1 stated that the number of prostitutions did not exceed four times while working as a entertainment loan through the instant sidewalk, Nonindicted Party 1 specifically stated the number of customers in the instant sidewalks, the number of entertainment loans, and studios in the business place at the time, and the internal structure of each business place and the math or the increase of the head of each business place.

3) After simply having provided entertainment, 45,000 won and 190,000 won were settled by Nonindicted 3 every week after having provided entertainment. This is consistent with Nonindicted 2, 3, and 4’s investigative agency’s statement. The 190,000 won for prostitution with the said four-time prostitutions was settled on the Tuesday on July 30, 202, the remainder three times (trade name omitted 1), the (trade name omitted 4), the (trade name omitted 3), the (trade name omitted 4), the (trade name omitted 3) first day around the end of July, and the (trade name omitted 3) price for prostitutions was paid by Nonindicted 2, 3, and 4’s investigative agency on the date of the instant investigation (the date of August 2, 2002), and the following statement was not made on the same day.

4) The lower court: (a) stated only one day on which Nonindicted Party 1 made a simple statement to Nonindicted Party 1 as “Defendant 23, 202” and “Nonindicted Party 24,” and (b) stated that Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to Nonindicted Party 1 as of August 5, 2002, which is the time when the police statement was made, and did not specify that date; (c) stated that Nonindicted Party 2 made a statement to Nonindicted Party 1 as of August 3, 2002, and that Nonindicted Party 3 did not have any specific statement as to the internal structure of the place where he made a leapment or a leapment; and (d) stated that Nonindicted Party 1’s statement to Nonindicted Party 2 and that Nonindicted Party 1’s statement to Nonindicted Party 3 as of July 5, 2002, it is difficult for the lower court to find that it was difficult for the Nonindicted Party 1 to have any other party’s statement to be made at the same time as that of his leapment.

(B) A copy of the police statement against Nonindicted 2 is also reliable in the following respect.

1) Non-Indicted 2 did not receive advance payment at the (trade name omitted) news bank for the operation of Non-Indicted 3, did not have any work when he wishes to do so, and there was no fact that he did not receive proper settlement of the price for entertainment or prostitution from Non-Indicted 3, and there is no reason to make a statement disadvantageous to Non-Indicted 3 or the Defendants.

2) Nonindicted 2 stated that the number of prostitutions did not exceed three times while working as a entertainment loan through the instant sidewalk, and that Nonindicted 2 made a detailed statement on the location of the business place at the time and whether Nonindicted 2 went to the neighboring telecom in order to make a prostitution, etc.

3) After simply entertainment, 45,000 won was settled on July 30, 202, and 190,000 won was settled from Nonindicted 3 every week. This is consistent with Nonindicted 1, 3, and 4’s investigative agency’s statement. Of the three-time prostitutions, 380,000 won was settled on July 30, 202 on the day when the police was investigated on July 30, 200, the amount of KRW 190,000 was written on July 30, 200, and the amount of KRW 190,000 was written on the day when the police was investigated on July 30, 200 (trade omitted 2) and was made on May 1, 200, and the following statement was made on the day when the police was made on May 20, 200.

(C) Meanwhile, at the police and the prosecution, Nonindicted 3 stated that: (a) it receives KRW 60,00 from the workplace and receives KRW 220,00 from the workplace in the event of prostitution; and (b) it is consistent with the police statements of Nonindicted 4 and the prosecutor’s statements of Defendant 3; and (c) it makes a statement to the effect that, at any time upon contact that money was prepared at the workplace on a daily or daily basis, it will be settled on a one-day basis with the money received; (d) it does not distinction between the act of simple entertainment at the workplace and the act of report from customers; and (e) Nonindicted 3 made a statement to the effect that, at the prosecutor’s office, it gives it to himself, who operates the sidewalk after receiving the money from the customers; (e) it is consistent with the first week’s firm name omitted; and (e) it is 20,000 won or more of the money that he provided with the card; and (e) it is 3,500,0000 won,000.

(D) Nonindicted 4, who worked as a driver at the sidewalk of Nonindicted 3’s operation, stated at the police that: (i) the instant news release release services were provided at entertainment establishments; and (ii) the news release release services were provided to the entertainment establishments with the knowledge that they were leap; and (iii) the news release services were provided to the entertainment establishments (name omitted 4); (iv) the day-to-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-to-day day-day week; (name omitted 5); (v) the (trade omitted 1); (vi) the (trade name omitted 8); (v) the day-to-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-to-day day-day week; and (vii) the statements made by Nonindicted 3, 1, and 2-2.

(E) According to the statement of communication confirmation data reply statement and investigation report (i) from May 18, 2002 to July 19, 2002, Defendant 1’s operation (trade name omitted 1) from Non-Indicted 3’s Handphones, and Nonindicted 3’s Handphones from May 2, 2002 to (trade name omitted 1) from Non-Indicted 3’s Handphones, and (ii) from May 2, 2002 to July 31, 200, the details of the sending and the call were examined from Non-Indicted 3’s Handphones from May 22, 200 to August 22, 2008; and (iii) from May 22, 2002 to March 3, 208, the sending and the call from Non-Indicted 3’s Handphones from May 22, 2002 to August 1, 2008.

(2) If the above circumstances are mutually related and comprehensively assessed, it is sufficient to recognize that the Defendants assisted the Defendants to engage in prostitution for business purposes as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which acquitted the Defendants of all of the facts charged in the instant case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The facts constituting the crime recognized by this court are as described in the above 2-A (a).

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor concerning the defendant 3 in the interrogation protocol of the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 3

1. A copy of the police officer's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 3 and prosecutor's protocol of interrogation

1. Copy of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 4 by the police officer

1. A copy of the statement made by the police against Nonindicted 1 and 2

1. Communication confirmation data and reply;

1. Investigation report (the reverses of call details and analysis of telephone details); and

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3 of the Addenda to the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. Act, Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution (amended by the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. on March 22, 2004)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

Judges Dok-man (Presiding Judge) Full-time correspondence