logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.06.11 2015노402
성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of arranging sexual traffic around August 2014 and the crime of arranging sexual traffic around October 2014, the crime of arranging sexual traffic conducted the same kind of business with the same name “E” at the same place under the single criminal intent, and constitutes an inclusive crime, but the judgment of the court below which determined this as a substantive concurrent crime, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment of Defendant B (a fine of five million won) sentenced by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal 1) Where multiple acts falling under the same criminal name of the same offense or misapprehension of legal principles continue to be committed for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the identity, continuity of the criminal intent is not recognized or the method and place of the crime are not the same, each of the crimes constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do4051, Sept. 30, 2005; 2011Do8222, Nov. 24, 201). In this regard, in a single single comprehensive crime, the meaning that “one of the single criminal intent” continues to be maintained without being renewed or rewritten upon the passage of time, and cannot be deemed to mean the perception and intent of continuing or repeating the same offense.

The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, are ① the Defendant, upon the control of the act of arranging sexual traffic around August 2014, the Defendant suspended his/her business, set up his/her substitute driving, etc., and ②.

arrow