A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

From November 2013 to February 20, 2014, the Defendant had 80,000 won and 1228 of the Seo-gu Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and had D, etc. employed as an employee, engage in sexual intercourse with an unspecified number of customers, and received 130,000 won from customers and paid 80,000 won to employees and acquired the remainder, thereby engaging in the act of arranging sexual intercourse, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. A copy of each occupant card or each contract for lease between main and main complexes;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of results of digital evidence analysis of mobile phones);

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and the Selection of Imprisonment, comprehensively, with respect to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing and the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act shall be taken into account):

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic [the basis for the calculation of a surcharge] The purpose of this Act is to deprive a woman of unlawful profits from the act of arranging sexual traffic in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Thus, expenses, such as taxes, etc. incurred by the offender in the course of performing the act of arranging sexual traffic, are not merely a method of consuming the money and goods acquired in return for the act of arranging sexual traffic or a method of justifying his/her act, and it does not constitute a deduction from the additionally collected amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008): Provided, that the cost of sexual traffic paid to the woman involved in sexual traffic is expected to be paid to the woman involved in sexual traffic, and thus, it cannot