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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of a building in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C.

The Defendant leased the three floors of the above building to D, but around March 7, 2010, was under control on the ground that D operated “E” as a sexual traffic business establishment.

On October 15, 2011, the Defendant leased the third floor of the above building to F in KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000, and provided F in the name of “E” to F in the place of sexual traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. An interrogation protocol of F by prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (report on calculation of proceeds from crime);

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

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

1. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (in this case, in which only the accused has requested a formal trial, since no sentence heavier than that imposed on the accused cannot be imposed pursuant to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the equivalent value shall not be collected);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant and his defense counsel had no intention to provide the building despite the fact that the third floor of the building in this case was provided for sexual traffic.

However, as long as the defendant denies it, the subjective internal facts, such as the intention to the effect that the building provided by himself is offered to sexual traffic, should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, and the degree of awareness about such crime is not necessarily definite, and it is sufficient to recognize it as if it is dolusent, and it is recognized by the evidence above.