A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. The defendant violates the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.") is a person who operates an entertainment tavern with

On July 25, 2011, around 01:3, the Defendant arranged sexual traffic between D and E on the condition that 20,000 won should be deducted from prepaid payment to E, and 20,000 won should be deducted from prepaid payment.

B. At around 04:00 on August 1, 201, the Defendant arranged sexual traffic between F and E on the condition that he would deduct 200,000 won out of the prepaid money from F, a customer, and receive 200,000 won from F.

C. Around August 6, 2011, the Defendant: (a) received 200,000 won from G, a customer, as a chemical agent, etc.; and (b) mediated sexual traffic between G and H on the condition that 200,000 won should be deducted from the advance payment to H, an employee.

Accordingly, the defendant committed commercial sex acts such as arranging commercial sex acts.

2. Around September 23:00 on September 11, 201, the Defendant committed assault on the part of the victim’s left part of the hand floor, with a view to taking a bath for the victim, on the ground that the victim H (at the age of 25) did not work at work, and on the ground that the victim H (at the age of 25) did not work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, H, J, and D;

1. Each statement of E and H;

1. We examine the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., the core facts charged in the instant case, based on judgment of conviction of each individual book.

1. The Defendant’s defense counsel did not act as a broker for sexual traffic to female employees, such as E and H, and the female employees did not know that they had sexual intercourse with the Defendant, and the Defendant did not receive money from the customers at all, and denies the facts charged.

Based on this, the Defendant asserts that ① female employees have deducted the secondary cost from the prepaid payment, but only time fee is paid to the books that are directly prepared by female employees.