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

The Defendant is a person who operates a “Cdab” in the Gynam Navy B’s Meet.

On May 28, 2017, the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 9.5 million in lieu of the prepaid payment to the multilateral bank that D had been known to the general public, and employed D in Cda.

From that time until August 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) had the customer contacted with the Defendant cut off a ticket; and (b) had D perform sexual intercourse with the customer while delivering drinks, such as coffee, and received the communications unit from the customer; (c) had D, during the above period, she had D receive 590,000 won in money from many unspecified customers, such as E, F, etc., to engage in sexual intercourse with E and receive 590,000 won in money; and (d) had D receive money equivalent to a total of 82,70,000 won, such as the list of crimes, from a large scale, arrange commercial sex acts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the fourth trial records;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Each protocol of police interrogation of the accused, F, and E:

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning D;

1. Investigation report (the No. 15 of the evidence list);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on business accounting books and text details;

1. Articles 19 (2) 1 and 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and the Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The latter part of Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic [the amount of additional collection: approximately 4,135,00 won imported by the defendant (=the total amount of 8,270,000 won x the ratio of profit distribution agreed upon 50%)

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant does not know whether D was engaged in sexual traffic while operating the Cda, etc., and there is no fact of arranging D to engage in sexual traffic.

2...