Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

(In fact-finding) 2. Judgment

A. Although the crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. and the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals even though the crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. as indicated in the judgment of the court below is an ordinary concurrent crime, the court below held that there exists a substantive concurrent crime and made a mistake of putting a

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it will be examined.

B. Article 2 subparag. 2(c) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. provides that “an act of providing funds, land, or buildings despite being aware of the fact that they are offered for sexual traffic,” and the purport of punishing them is to indirectly prohibit not only a person who directly provides a place of sexual traffic but also a person who provides a place of sexual traffic, such as leasing a building to another person, etc. It is established regardless of whether the act of providing sexual traffic has been punished as an act of arranging sexual traffic.

However, in this case, since an actor satisfies the requirements of "the knowledge of the fact that the building provided for sexual traffic is used in the crime of sexual traffic", the actor's intention is required to be used in the crime of sexual traffic. Since such intention is an in-depth fact, if the defendant denies it, it is inevitable to recognize it through indirect facts with considerable relation to the intention. In addition, the awareness of the crime of sexual traffic does not need to be recognized until the specific contents of the crime of sexual traffic are recognized,

As to this case, the court below's judgment is legitimate.