Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of “D hotel” in Ischeon-si C.

With knowledge that E is engaged in arranging sexual traffic with the trade name "F" on the first floor of the above hotel, the Defendant: (a) received a monthly rent of KRW 5 million from February 2, 2017 to August 17, 2017, and leased the above hotel first floor to E.

Accordingly, the defendant provided a building knowing that sexual traffic is provided.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The criminal place;

1. A certificate of all registered matters;

1. A copy of a real estate lease agreement, certificate of contents, or passbook of a new bank by the defendant;

1. A detailed statement of transaction in the Japanese bank;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (review report on calculation of an additional collection charge);

1. Article 19 (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., and selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, Including Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. [The amount of rent shall be KRW 5 million for each month around March and April, 2017, and KRW 6 million for each month between May and August, 2017, respectively. Total amount of KRW 34 million, the Defendant’s share of KRW 30.6 million (building ownership share 0.9)] Supreme Court Decision 2013Do161 Decided February 27, 2014

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order denies the instant crime (A review of the record reveals that, around February 2017, E requested that the Defendant approve the succession of the right to lease on the first floor F of the above hotel that succeeded to around December 2016 from the Defendant only Ha (the contracting owner I) to the Defendant on February 2, 2016, and the Defendant refused the right to lease by reason of the payment of the fine due to H’s act of arranging sexual traffic, and the Defendant refused the right to lease by reason of the payment of the fine due to H’s act of arranging sexual traffic;

4. Around three occasions, including 25.25., the Defendant sent a certificate of content demanding E to withdraw from the above F. However, on the other hand, on April 25, 2017, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 30 million from E under the name of the deposit for restoration from the original state, and on the other hand, the evidence of the fact that the Defendant received KRW 30 million from E.