No one shall be allowed to engage in any business activity that disturbs public morals, such as getting juveniles to sleep in sexual intercourse, or provide a place for such business activity.

Nevertheless, around 02:00 on September 16, 2018, the Defendant engaged in a business activity that disturbs public morals by making juveniles in the above telecom C (ma, 18 years old), E (n, 18 years old), and E (n, 18 years old), a sexual intercourse.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that he did not know about the facts charged of this case’s sexual intercourse.

B. As evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, E and D’s statements are made at investigation agencies and courts.

First of all, in the case of E’s statement by the prosecutor, the document of investigation (the video recording of the witness) No. 12 is inadmissible unless the defendant consents because he/she did not sign or seal the person who made the statement because he/she conducted the video recording examination and recorded the contents of the statement in summary. The video CD No. 13 as the above video recording is also inadmissible as independent evidence.

However, at the time of the written statement submitted to an investigation agency on October 6, 2018, D stated to the effect that “The instant telecomter shall be presumed to be a woman in view of the principal, but did not conduct an inspection of identification card,” and in this court, it stated to the effect that “D was a person inside and outside of the telecomter, and was the same as a pipe of his/her entrance, and that E was the same in the course of a large-scale investigation with the Defendant, and that he/she was the Defendant, and that he/she was the Defendant and the Defendant who was inside the telecomter.”

C. On the other hand, however, considering that the statements of E and D are not consistent in major parts and are relatively consistent with the Defendant’s relatively consistent arguments, as seen below.