beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, who is an employee, was unaware of the fact that D had arranged sexual traffic, and paid considerable attention to and supervised the business in order to prevent the employee from engaging in the act of arranging sexual traffic.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.
B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. The lower court ex officio determined as to whether the instant crime was attempted, and applied Article 23 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts by deeming that the instant crime constituted a person who has not mediated commercial sex acts.
Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, Including the Mediation of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. refers to mediating or facilitating the convenience of sexual traffic between the parties who intend to engage in commercial sex acts. Thus, in order to act as a broker for commercial sex acts, the parties who intend to engage in commercial sex acts are not necessarily required to actually engage in or face with each other, and it is sufficient that the parties have been engaged in commercial sex acts to the extent that they are able to engage in commercial sex acts even if they do not intervene any longer by linking the parties who intend to engage in commercial sex acts, even if they do not intervene, (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9172, May 26, 201). In this case, it is sufficiently recognized that D has no sexual relation, even though it connects with G commercial sex acts with the intent of commercial sex acts, and therefore there is no change in the number of persons who have attempted commercial sex acts, and thus, it cannot be reversed by misapprehending the legal principles on the defendant's right of defense.