However, it is against the Defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is a business owner in the name of "G" place in the name of Goyang-dong Seoul Building D, E, and F of the building C, Defendant B and H are employees of the said place of business, and deceased I (Death on January 16, 2018) is the actual owner of the said place of business.

Defendant

A and B, from December 20, 2017 to February 18, 2018, from January 25, 2018 to February 18, 2018, H, from January 25, 2018 to February 18, 2018, Defendant A registered the said establishment in his/her name; Defendant A, after having registered the establishment of the said establishment in his/her name; Defendant B, as the head of the night office of the said establishment; Defendant B, as the main office of the said establishment; and Defendant B, in collusion with the said I to arrange sexual traffic; Defendant B, upon receiving KRW 180,000 from many unspecified male customers who found the said establishment, agreed to receive KRW 90,00 among them to give back to the female employees of sexual traffic; provided guidance as to whether they are drinking in the said establishment; and provided guidance as to sexual intercourse within the said establishment; and then, Defendant B, in consultation with the said I to introduce sexual intercourse.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with the above, H and I to arrange commercial sex acts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the prosecution and the police interrogation of the defendant B;

1. Written statements under J, H and B;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Cut photographs of a sexual traffic advertising site;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of police seizure records and list statutes;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with labor, or imprisonment with labor;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution does not extend to the period of the business of arranging the sexual traffic in this case, the establishment of a large number of places of sexual traffic, the confession of crimes, and the degree of participation in the crime in the crime in this case, Defendant A did not focus on the degree of participation in the crime as a franchise of a blind person, Defendant A did not engage in the business of the massage treatment place at the present time by changing the name, Defendant A did not engage in the business of the massage treatment place. Defendant B