beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
Defendant
B The above fine shall not be paid.
Reasons
Criminal facts
1. The Defendants’ co-principals Defendant A operated an officetel entertainment business establishment in the name of “O” under the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government K Officetel L, M, and N, and Defendant B decided to be the head of the day office in which the said commercial entertainment business establishment receives the reservations from customers or provides guidance to customers.
The Defendants also state, from December 16, 2018 to January 15, 2019, the women working at a commercial sex acts business establishment, "O," who received KRW 110,00 to 230,00 as the price for commercial sex acts, from the 7 male customers average of the 1st day average of the 1st day when the Defendants discovered commercial sex acts in each of the above officetels from around January 14, 2019 to around January 15, 2019 (However, from around January 14, 2019 to January 15, 2019). However, according to evidence, even if the indictment was corrected without changing the indictment, they appear to be "P and Q," and thus, they are corrected ex officio.
In other words, two people had two male customers to engage in sexual intercourse with the above male customers.
As a result, Defendants conspired to arrange sexual traffic for business purposes.
2. Defendant A’s sole crime of Defendant A stated that, under the name of “V” in the name of “Rtel S, T, and U, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Rotel S, Defendant A will operate an officetel entertainment business establishment. From Sep. 2, 2018 to Nov. 29, 2018, Defendant A’s average five male customers, who reported the advertisement of his/her commercial arrangement site in each of the above officetels, were paid KRW 110,00 to 230,000 as the price for commercial sex acts, and employed in advance, as “AB, AC,” while according to the evidence, Defendant A appears to be “W, X” and even if correction was made without the amendment procedure, Defendant’s exercise of right to defense.