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

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 21, 2012, the Defendant leased the 2nd underground floor C in Guro-si from D, its owner, and around March 24, 2012, opened the 2nd underground floor, which is a sexual traffic business establishment, and recommended F to engage in sexual traffic, and obtained consent from F.

At around 22:30 on March 29, 2012, the Defendant received 90,000 won for sexual traffic from G at the border of the old police station, which is most likely to be sexual traffic customers, at the place of the above “E” massage, and provided guidance to F.

Accordingly, the defendant arranged and solicited commercial sex acts, and provided commercial sex acts places.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police of the F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the F Statements;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts and Subordinate Statutes concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Mediation, etc. of Sexual Traffic;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that no act of arranging sexual traffic has been committed.

2. The following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the witness F prepared a written statement from the police on March 29, 2012 to the effect that “it was discovered while doing sexual traffic. It was not determined how to receive the Gu fee from the customer. It was formed in the order of face satry, soup, and shower after the shower. He thought that the satisf is too difficult and the money needs to be paid, and that it was correct and wrong.” On March 30, 2012, I stated that “The promise to engage in sexual traffic was made by the investigative agency, but not sexual intercourse was made until it was sexual intercourse.” On February 25, 2014, I stated that the customer was the Defendant and the promise to engage in sexual intercourse.”