When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

From August 2012, 2012 to October 26, 2012, the Defendant operated an “officetel” business under the trade name called “C” in Bupyeong-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City B 803, and 1316, and installed a blick, etc. on the said officetel, and employed a female employee D or non-spick during the said period.

The Defendant received 80,000 won per capita in return for the sex trafficking from the average male grandchildren of 1 to 2 per day who found the above business establishment during the above period, and had the above female employees lose the sex of the male grandchildren, and had them do the act of similarity that enables the male grandchildren to see the son’s sexual organ on his hand under the above conditions, thereby arranging sexual traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning suspect examination of D;

1. A report on investigation, photograph of business place, etc.;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (report on attachment of a copy of suspect A submitted lease agreement);

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

1. Article 24 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., imprisonment and fines concurrently;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

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

1. Probation under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the crime of this case was committed in spite of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case, even though he had the record of being sentenced to a fine due to the same type of crime, the crime of this case is not weak, but the defendant appears to be willing not to repeat again after disposing of an officetel, and the execution of imprisonment with prison labor is suspended considering the size of the business of this case, business period, profits accrued therefrom, the age of the defendant, electricity, etc. In addition, since it is impossible to accurately calculate the profits from the crime of this case, it is deemed that there is a necessity to deprive him of the corresponding economic profits, instead of being additionally collected.