Defendant

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

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who establishes a room 4 and a shower room in the second floor of the building located in the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City and operates a marina room in the trade name of "E", and Defendant B is an employee of the above establishment.

On October 24, 2013, at the above E businesses around 13:20 on October 24, 2013, Defendants: (a) reported the advertisement of adult massages posted by Defendant A on the Internet F website, and (b) assisted sexual intercourse by the business of having female employees engage in similar behavior to stimulate the sexual organ of customers by hand, and (c) receiving KRW 70,00 won as the price, and guiding the above customers at three times.

At around 16:00 on the same day, the Defendants promised G to provide the above similarity act service at the 70,000 won in the price of sexual traffic and arranged sexual traffic by guiding the above G at 3 studio.

At around 17:10 on the same day, the Defendants promised to offer the same similarity service in 80,000 won to one male grandchild who found the Internet advertisement after reporting the said Internet advertisement and making a promise to offer the above similarity service at the price of sexual traffic.

As a result, Defendants conspired to arrange sexual traffic for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The police statement of H;

1. A written statement of the G production;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Suppression photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The fact that the defendants appear to have the attitude of recognizing and opposing the mistakes under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code, and there is no record of crime exceeding the fine.