If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

The Defendant is a person who runs a lodging business with the trade name “D” in Gangnam-si C.

The Defendant, around November 22, 2013, at the above accommodation facility around 19:56, requested a female to engage in commercial sex acts. At around 19:56, the Defendant: (a) received 30,000 won from the above male as a substitute fee; (b) received 18,000 won from the above male; (c) paid 12,00 won as the price for commercial sex acts to the above E; and (d) mediated the Defendant to have the remaining 12,00 won as the price for commercial sex acts; and (e) arranged the said E to engage in commercial sex acts more than six times in total from November 22, 2013 to December 12, 2013 by means of the same method, such as

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Copies of data verifying personal information of mobile phone subscribers;

1. A criminal report of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. and Selection of a fine concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the assertion that the indictment by the act of arranging sexual traffic is against the law, the defendant and his defense counsel did not intend to regulate the act of arranging sexual traffic at an investigative agency, but arrested the investigator from G operated by F by deceiving the investigator to the customer, and then, the prosecution of this case was instituted by concluding that the above telephone conversations was made for the purpose of arranging sexual traffic based on the telephone conversation between the defendant and the defendant stored in the cell phone. As such, the prosecution of this case constitutes a case where the indictment procedure is null and void due to an illegal act of causing sexual traffic in violation of the law, and the evidence collected as a result of such illegal act of causing sexual traffic cannot be admitted as evidence in accordance with the rules of exclusion of illegally collected evidence.

According to the above evidence, E.W.