A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant violated the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (hereinafter “Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.”) is a person who rents 2 underground floors of Gangnam-gu Seoul, installs about 70 square meters, installs 7 studio rooms, one waiting room for employees, and three shower rooms, etc., employs female employees C (n and 33 years of age) and operates marinas and commercial sex acts establishments with the trade name of “D”.

The Defendant: (a) between March 30, 2012 and April 13, 2012, between March 30, 2012 and April 13, 2012, the Defendant: (b) received 70,000 or 130,000 won, respectively, from those who found the said business establishment, and had C et al. do sexual intercourse with male, thereby

2. From March 30, 2012 to April 13, 2012, the Defendant violated the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (sexual traffic) committed sexual intercourse with the said men by receiving KRW 70,00 to KRW 130,00 from those who had found the said business place, respectively, and engaging in sexual intercourse with the said men.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of the accused, E, and F by the prosecution;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of G, C, and H;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Written statements prepared by the J;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. On May 18, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court issued a summary order of a fine of five million won to the defendant under Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (the act of arranging sexual traffic) regarding criminal facts. The crime of this case was committed prior to the issuance of the said summary order, but the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, namely, the defendant completed the operation of the business of this case after being subject to the police control on September 19, 201, which was the day of the crime of the said summary order and transferred the business to E, and the defendant thereafter transferred the business to E. around March 2012.