Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2 million.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A operated an officetel sexual traffic business with the trade name “D” in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C 1110.

On September 6, 2017, the Defendant: (a) waiting the instant officetel B, a female employee, and (b) arranged sexual traffic by allowing B, etc. to receive the price for sexual traffic with B and sexual intercourse from the F, which reported a promotional writing at the Internet site “E” to receive the price for sexual traffic of KRW 1.60,000 from August 1, 2017 to September 6, 2017, by allowing B, etc. to receive the price for sexual traffic of KRW 130,00 from an unspecified number of men and receive the price for sexual traffic of KRW 1.60,00 from August 1, 2017.

2. Defendant B: (a) around 16:00 on September 6, 2017, around C 1110 as indicated in the foregoing paragraph 1; (b) was sexually engaged in sexual traffic by entering into a sexual relationship with the customer F and having a sexual intercourse with KRW 160,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Monthly tax contracts, etc. for officetels;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, and selection of fines

B. Defendant B: Article 21(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts; Selection of fines

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendant A (the sentencing guidelines are not applicable as they were selected by a fine) with the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; thus, it is necessary to strictly eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic because of the lack of social harm, such as the commercialization of women’s sex and undermining the sound sexual culture and good morals; and the Defendant’s act of advertising a commercial sex business establishment using the Internet website and renting an officetel as a commercial sex business place, etc. is not good in consideration of the fact that the law is inappropriate.

However, the defendant was willing to commit the crime of this case and erred.