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

The Defendant, along with C, operated a commercial sex acts business establishment by leasing No. 208, etc. of the Seoul Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Officetel 208, etc., and advertised the above business establishment on the Internet “F, etc.” and employed G, etc. as female employees.

At around 20:30 on October 26, 2014, the Defendant conspiredd with C, etc., to have a male grandchild who had promised to call at the said establishment, and to enter the said D building 208, and then arranged sexual intercourse with female employees G, as well as arranging sexual intercourse with them, the Defendant engaged in the act of arranging sexual intercourse, etc. from October 7, 2014 to December 19, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. Probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act, the reason for sentencing [the scope of recommendation] under Article 2 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, the ground for sentencing under Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommendations], the brokerage of commercial sex acts, etc., the second category (one to three years, etc.) and [the 1-3 years] [the person under special relationship] advertising acts or mediation using a medium with high radio wave [the sentence], the defendant is deemed to be an employee of the business establishment of this case, and the defendant is deemed not to have committed a second offense against his/her mistake and has committed a second offense, and the punishment is determined as per the disposition on the same ground.