However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who operates a sexual traffic business establishment called "D" from the third floor of Ansan-si.

In spite of being prohibited from engaging in the act of arranging sexual traffic for business purposes, the defendant employed E as female employees at the above sexual traffic business establishment on April 11, 2017, and arranged sexual traffic for the business of arranging sexual intercourse after receiving KRW 100,000 in return for sexual traffic from male customers who found the above business establishment in return for sexual traffic, and allowing them to engage in sexual intercourse from March 21, 2017 to April 11, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. E statements;

1. Application of statutes, such as site photographs;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Mediation, etc. of elective sexual traffic for facts constituting an offense, and Article 19 (2) 1 of the same Act and selection of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The portion not guilty, including the observation of protection and the record of being sentenced to a fine for the same crime with the same reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the fact that there is no previous conviction exceeding the fine, and the size and period of illegal business;

1. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant arranged sexual traffic while operating a sexual traffic business establishment described in the facts charged from August 2014 to March 20, 2017.

2. The Defendant’s police statement is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s act of arranging sexual traffic at the said establishment prior to March 21, 2017, where the following evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, that the Defendant denied its content and denied its admissibility, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone.

3. In conclusion, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence should be rendered after Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, this part of the facts charged is a single crime relation.