However, each of the above imprisonment years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is a person who acts as a guest in D in Jeju, and acts as a broker for sexual traffic, and Defendant B is a person who operates the "Fmanmanium" on the second floor of the building E at Jeju.

No one shall arrange, solicit, induce or compel sexual traffic in return for giving or receiving money, valuables or other property benefits to unspecified persons, or arrange sexual traffic, provide a place, etc.

Nevertheless, at around 00:05 on August 10, 2019, Defendant A enticed a man who is going around D, to engage in sexual traffic, as “I are frighting,” and, between the above female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female

As a result, Defendants B conspired to provide a sexual traffic place and Defendant A enticed a man to engage in commercial sex acts such as arranging sexual traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A statement prepared by H;

1. Report on investigation (Attachment of a on-site photograph), application of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 19 (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with labor for the crimes;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, which committed the act of arranging sexual traffic in collusion by the Defendants, is disadvantageous to the fact that the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, that the record of the punishment for the same crime is less than that of Defendant A, Defendant A, and Defendant B, which included two times the summary order issued for the same crime as of May 18, 2019, immediately before the instant case (No. 2019 High Court Decision 201Da3473).

However, the Defendants’ charges are charged.