No one shall arrange, induce or induce sexual traffic or provide a place for sexual traffic, etc.

Nevertheless, around 15:40 on August 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) directed the police officer who pretended to be a customer to receive KRW 80,00 from the police officer to engage in similar sexual intercourse; and (b) arranged sexual intercourse in a sealed room into E who is a sexual traffic woman from July 21, 2014 to August 4, 2014; and (c) arranged sexual traffic for business with unspecified customers who find the above business.

2. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a false criminal trial for judgment lies on the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt must be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined in the interest of the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 200Do1568 delivered on July 28, 200, 2000Do4946 delivered on February 9, 2001, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, it is difficult to conclude that the statement made by the control police officer F alone by the fact that the defendant assisted the act of sexual intercourse because the investigation of female employees working at the business establishment at the time of this case was not conducted at all, is difficult to conclude that the defendant assisted the act of sexual intercourse. All circumstances, such as the fact that there was no entirely any seizure of the articles that can predict the act of sexual intercourse, such as the Red Sea, etc., at the time of the control of this case.