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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who runs a lodging business with the trade name of “Dn' in Seoul Jung-gu C and the first floor.”

1. No person who violates the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts, such as brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic, shall arrange, solicit, induce or compel sexual traffic for business purposes;

Nevertheless, on May 29, 2017, the Defendant introduced E in order for the Defendant to receive KRW 50,00 from the customers using the above female house and to engage in sexual traffic, in the “D female house” operated by the Defendant in Seoul Central-gu C and the first floor.

Accordingly, the defendant arranged sexual traffic for business purposes.

2. No person who engages in public morals business, such as lodging business in violation of the Regulation of Customs Business Act, shall engage in any conduct, such as arranging sexual traffic, at a place in which the business is engaged

Nevertheless, the defendant committed such acts as arranging sexual traffic at the time and place mentioned in the above paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. The criminal place;

1. Application of statutes, such as site photographs;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, Including Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, concerning facts constituting an offense (the occupation of a business mediating commercial sex acts) and Articles 10 (1) and 3 subparagraph 1 of the same Act (the occupation of an act mediating commercial sex acts, such as arranging commercial sex acts at a custom office);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the criminal facts indicated in the judgment are based on an illegal naval investigation, but in light of the developments, method, E and the attitude of the defendant, etc. revealed by the evidence above, it cannot be seen that the defendant's criminal intent to arrange sexual traffic was caused only by the control police officer, and thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.]