Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates D', a public morals business office in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government three floors.

No person operating the amusement business affecting the public morals shall have any person do any obscene act, or mediate or provide it at a place carrying on the amusement business affecting the public morals.

From February 2, 2012 to October 2, 2012, the Defendant arranged obscene acts, such as employing 13 female employees, including “E”, “G”, “H”, and “I,” with 30% of the total male customers, and arranging the said female employees and kis in a closed space with 70,000 won per hour.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. Partial statement of the witness F in the court;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Entry of a written statement prepared by the defendant;

1. Statement of a person prepared by the F;

1. Descriptions of a report on internal investigation;

1. Entry of a copy of the business account book;

1. Entry of a photograph of control site and application of the video Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 10 (2) and subparagraph 2 of Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Businesses Affecting Public Morals Affecting Punishment for Crimes, and Articles 10 (2) and 3 of the same Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant, including a traffic control police officer, has received several questions about the legitimacy of the pertinent business activity and received answers from the competent police station, and thus, the illegality is excluded due to justifiable grounds under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined earlier, namely, the fact that the J, a traffic control police officer, told the Defendant that the Defendant cannot make an accurate judgment as to the legality of the business prior to the instant crackdown, etc., it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable reason for the Defendant’s failure to recognize the illegality of the Defendant’s act.

Supreme Court Decision 200