A A shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won, and by imprisonment with prison labor for five months.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

The name-free person is the owner of ‘D' in the area C and the third floor of the tolerance-si, and the defendant A is the employee in charge of the customer guidance in the above company.

1. Defendant A conspired with the above D business owner on his name in collusion with the Defendant, from June 27, 2018 to July 5, 2018, the said business owner received 100,000 won from the unspecified number of sex buyers, and had the said male engage in a similar sexual intercourse with the female employees, such as E, and arranged for the business of sexual traffic.

2. Defendant B aided and abetted the act of arranging sexual traffic with the business of arranging sexual traffic, such as confirming the employees’ work status at the above establishment upon request of the business owner upon receipt of the request from around June 8, 2018 to June 26, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. The defendant B's partial statement, and the defendant B's partial statement in the second protocol of trial

1. Second prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant B;

1. E statements;

1. Investigation report (suspect A telephone statement hearing);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of the business concern;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., Defendant B of Article 30 of the Criminal Act: Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant B who aided and mitigated: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A: Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are not involved in the sexual traffic business establishment, and all of the crimes are denied.

This case was prosecuted on the basis of Defendant B’s statement at the first investigative agency, deeming him as the owner of sexual traffic business.