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

The Defendant served as the head of the office in charge of the overall management of the business place at the similarity trading business place (a "E" operated by D in the second floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C, and was equipped with seven shower rooms and one waiting room, etc. at each place, on the condition that he/she solicits customers through Internet advertisements and pays 45,000 won out of the price paid for each customer, and then hires F and G as female employees and let F perform the act of similarity with F and one time of customer H around 18:50 on June 20, 2014, and from around 18:50 on the same year, the Defendant from around June 20, 2014 to the same year.

8. Until December 28, 200, female employees had female workers do the act of similarity which helps male customers see or see the sexual organ of male customers by hand.

As a result, the defendant conspired with D to commit acts such as arranging sexual traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of F, G, and H;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Criminal Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the punishment for acts of arranging sexual traffic, such as relevant Articles of the Acts and the choice of punishment concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution ( normal consideration of the reasons for the suspension of execution);

1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act regarding community service order;

1. The former part of Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic [the Prosecutor 2,00,000 won is also the penalty surcharge of KRW 2,00,000. This seems to be based on the investigation report (the review of the surcharge calculation report and the list of evidence No. 14). However, unlike the facts stated in the judgment, the actual penalty surcharge calculation is calculated on the basis of the Defendant’s false statement that he is the actual owner of the business (the calculation details are excluded from the profits earned on August 28, 2014). However, there is no ground to view that the above calculation details are excluded from the profits earned on

. The actual contents of this article.