2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From September 27, 2018, the Plaintiff is a person who operates the Camnobsium name, “Cambs” in the name of an entertainment drinking club B (5th floor) located in Seocho-gu, Changwon-gu.

B. On March 8, 2019, the Defendant, in collaboration with the employee D, received payment of 250,000 won for sexual traffic, from the male grandchildren who found the said business in violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, and arranged sexual traffic.

On April 19, 2019, upon receipt of the notice of "the disposition of this case", "the disposition of this case does not exceed three months of business suspension to the plaintiff."

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (each entry, including serial numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The reporter who reported the arrangement of sexual traffic to the Plaintiff’s assertion is not the party who actually intended to purchase the sex, and thus cannot engage in sexual traffic. Even if the Plaintiff mediated a female who is willing to sell sexual intercourse, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff violated the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., and even if it is subject to punishment, it constitutes an impossible attempt, and the disposition of this case based on the premise that it is an impossible attempt.

B. (1) The phrase “act of arranging sexual traffic” under Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and Article 10(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals means that the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic make good offices or facilitates the convenience of doing so. Thus, for the purpose of arranging sexual traffic, it does not necessarily mean that the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic under such good offices have to actually engage in or face with each other, but it is sufficient if there is only an act of arranging sexual traffic to the extent that the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic had no involvement by the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic, even if there is no involvement

Supreme Court on May 26, 201