A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and fine of 5,00,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months and fine of 5,00,000 won.

Defendant

A is a person who leases approximately 1 and 2 underground floors in Gangnam-gu Seoul and installs about 200 studio 16, shower 1, 5 water surface rooms, etc. A is a person who employs 10 employees, including 3-4 female employees, and operates marinas and sexual traffic business establishments with the trade name of "F", and Defendant B is a management director of the above business establishment, who acts as a management director of the above business establishment, and operates the above A with the above business establishment.

From September 9, 201 to February 10, 2012, the Defendants received KRW 140,000 to KRW 150,000 per capita or KRW 180,00 per credit card from the male who found the said business establishment, and had female employees do sexual intercourse with the said male or have them do the act of similarity with the said female sexual intercourse (the act of putting the sexual organ of the previous sexual intercourse or the male grandchildren on his/her hand).

As a result, Defendants conspired to arrange sexual traffic for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Prosecutorial suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. A protocol of suspect examination of G police officers;

1. Each statement of H and I;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The punishment provided for in Article 24 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, each of the suspended execution (the defendants);

1. Probation and community service order (defendants) under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B alleged to the effect that the judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is merely an aiding and abetting offense of the instant crime. However, in full view of the aforementioned evidence, Defendant B, as a management director of the said business establishment, conspired with Defendant A and operated the said business establishment in collusion with Defendant A. Thus, Defendant B is acknowledged.