A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates the “C” with five rooms sealed by shock shocks in Seoul Special Metropolitan City-based B-1 floor and one shower be equipped.

No person who runs the amusement business affecting the public morals shall have another person do any obscene act at a place where the business affecting the public morals is conducted, or mediate or provide such act.

Nevertheless, on July 13, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 70,00 from D, which was found to be a customer to the said business establishment, and had female employees and kis by bringing them into the said business establishment two smuggling together with female employees E, and had female employees and kis together with the chests. On October 11, 2018, the Defendant took 70,000 won from F, which was found to be a customer to the said business establishment, and brought them into the said obscenity with female employees G, as well as arranging the above obscenity by bringing them into the said obscenity, and had them receive money from many male employees from around January 201, 201 to October 11, 201.

As a result, the Defendant had a person engaged in the amusement business affecting the public morals do any obscene act or arranged it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the police investigation of H concerning H;

1. Each statement of D, I, G, J and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each control site photograph;

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

1. Determination of the sentence as ordered by comprehensively taking account of the following conditions and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the reasoning of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act.

In 2012 and 2013, the defendant has twice the same force, and in 2013, the control is against the same place as the place of the crime in this case.