A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, for each of the defendants B.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant.

1. Defendant A, from January 28, 2020 to March 9, 2020, installed “D” in “D, Magro area, shower room, surveillance camera, and employee waiting room in the following cities from around January 28, 2020 to around March 9, 2020, and employed B as an employee. From male customers who found there, 20-minute courses were 60,000 won for male customers, and 60-minute courses were 10,000 won for male customers and 100,000 won for 60,000 won for 60,000 won for 60,000 won for male customers.

Accordingly, the defendant arranged sexual traffic for business purposes.

2. Defendant B, from January 28, 2020 to March 9, 2020, committed the act of similarity between the above “D” and the above “D,” and the same act of similarity between male customers who found in the above space, as soon as possible as possible to enter the sexual organ of male customers or to look at them by hand, and 20 minutes courses from Defendant A were divided into KRW 30,000,000, and KRW 60,000,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on internal investigation (related to situations of control, business concerns, and field situations), photographs of field control, and written statements;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic;

(b) Defendant B: Article 21(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic;

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Defendants on probation and community service order: The contents of the crime that undermines the sound sexual morals of the grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act per se are heavy, and Defendant A was sentenced to suspended sentence once for the same crime, Defendant B had been punished for the same crime on six occasions, and Defendant B had been punished for the same crime, but there is no room for criticism in that it committed a repeated crime only with the light of the legal order.

However, the defendants' reflectivity, the period of business, the size of profits therefrom, and other circumstances before and after crimes.