Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,00, and by a fine of KRW 1,500,000, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the operator of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building and the 3rd floor "E" (one name: the e.g., the e., the e.g., and the defendant B is the head of the business office that manages the business of the above establishment.

Defendants conspired, from September 10, 2013 to October 1, 2013, the Defendants provided four rooms to perform the act of similarity to the said business establishment, and decided to distribute 15,000 won in cash, and 20,000 won in cash to female employees, and on October 1, 2013, Defendant B provided 35,000 won to the said business establishment and provided guidance to the said customer, and that G employees engaged in the act of similarity during the said period by having other employees enter the customer’s sexual organ.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each protocol concerning the suspect examination of the Defendants, G, and F

1. Each written statement by the Defendants and G

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as records of seizure, photographs of business concern;

1. The Defendants: Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A: Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are that Defendant A did not have the same criminal records and reflects their mistakes. However, as the operator of the business establishment engaging in the similarities of this case, the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the crime are significant. Therefore, even considering the various circumstances asserted by the above Defendant, it does not seem that the fine prescribed by the summary order of this case is more severe.

However, Defendant B has no specific criminal punishment power except for juvenile protection cases, and this case.