Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts, such as the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts (e.g., brokerage, etc. of commercial sex acts), the Defendant is a person who establishes six guest rooms with simple beds and screen facilities inside the trade name “F” in Dobong-gu Seoul, Seoul.

From November 27, 2014 to October 2015, the Defendant arranged the employees to engage in a similarity act that enables the said employees to see the sexual organ of customers by hand in a marina room, where he received approximately KRW 100,000 of the price from many unspecified customers who employ female employees, such as G, etc. at the said business establishment from around November 27, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant committed commercial sex acts such as arranging sexual traffic.

B. On November 26, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 7 million by the Seoul Northern District Court for a crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Intermediation of Commercial Sex Acts (e.g., brokerage of commercial sex acts) on the grounds that the Defendant had engaged in commercial sex acts in the above “F” from July 15, 2014 to August 13, 2014.

When the above "F" was controlled, Defendant 1 had concerns over being severely punished if he continued to operate the business and re-controled, and worked at the above business establishment until May 2014.

B B, “If it is controlled, B C is the owner of a sexual traffic business establishment, as if it is the owner of the sexual traffic business establishment.”

The Defendant, as above, committed a promise with B and engaged in sexual traffic in F, was under the control of the police around August 27, 2015 while engaging in sexual traffic in F.

Upon the control of the above, the defendant was merely a simple employee by the police officer, and the defendant was a false statement that B was a unemployment of a sexual traffic business establishment. On September 3, 2015, the defendant called B as the actual owner of B when undergoing a police investigation. The defendant strongly argued B as the actual owner when he was investigated by the police. The defendant will be dealt with when the fine, etc. was later imposed.

“....”