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

On January 21, 2015, the Defendant employed a female sexual traffic under the condition that he/she pays to the female sexual traffic as a brokerage fee, and then, on January 21, 2015, around 16:30,000, the Defendant 1,30,000 won as the price for sexual traffic by allowing the female employee E to enter the above heading room where he/she was under the atmosphere and to have the female employee E enter the said heading room and to have the sexual intercourse, and 40 times from the end of December 2014 to January 21, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of E or D;

1. Investigation report (related to profits from sexual traffic and calculation of additional collection charges);

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Article 19 (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (referring to the occupation of arranging sexual traffic) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for an offense;

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

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

1. The latter part of Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order [the scope of recommendation] The aggravated area (1 to 3 years) of the second category (1 to 19 years of commercial sex acts, such as brokerage, etc. of commercial sex acts, etc. (1 to 3 years of commercial sex acts, etc. by giving and receiving, etc.) [the decision of sentence] the defendant's leakage or F has arranged commercial sex acts using high media [the decision of sentence] from October 2, 2013 to February 6, 2014, where the defendant was punished by a fine (2014Gadan90, Jun. 16, 2014). After that, the defendant was involved in the case where the defendant was punished by a fine (2014Gadan390, Jun. 2, 2014). The same case as the case in this case in this case in this case in three officetels from the beginning of May 2014 to June 16, 2014.