However, the above sentence shall be executed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. From March 26, 2013 to March 28, 2013, Defendant D operated an “officetel” sexual traffic business establishment in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Etel 411, which was placed in the instant officetel, and employed female employees B during the said period. The Defendant borrowed the name of the above officetel lease contract and was investigated as a vocational beneficiary at the time of the police control.

D received 130,000 won per man in return for sexual traffic from the F and the male descendants with an average of 3 to 4 persons per day who found the above business for the above period, and caused the above B to have the male grandchildren conduct sexual intercourse with the male grandchildren.

Accordingly, the defendant conspiredd with D to arrange sexual traffic for business purposes.

2. Defendant B, around March 28, 2013, received KRW 80,00 from KRW 130,000,000 paid by F at the place of the foregoing Paragraph 1., and engaged in sexual intercourse with F and once, thereby engaging in sexual intercourse.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of the police interrogation protocol to F

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and Article 30 of the Criminal Act: Article 21 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic;

1. Defendant B of detention in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A who has been suspended from execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following circumstances favorable to the accused);

1. Defendant B of the provisional payment order: Although there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendants in the grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act recognize their mistakes and reflects them, Defendant A did not have any record of punishment heavier than the fine, and Defendant B did not have any record of punishment, the act of arranging sexual traffic, such as this case, damages the human dignity and is sound.