Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants, together with C and D, intended to operate the “G” of the Etel Nos. 307, 512, and 501 and 1902 in Sungsung-si. The Defendants were willing to share the roles of the head of the office.

The Defendants conspired with C and D on November 20, 2014 to May 11, 2015, arranged commercial sex acts against unspecified customers by bringing them into the said officetel where they received KRW 1,40,000 won per hour from male customers who reported and contacted the Internet advertising site in return for sexual intercourse.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the Defendants and C by the prosecution

1. Copy of the prosecutor's statement concerning D;

1. A statement of H and I;

1. Seizure records;

1. Officetel lease contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, such as control sites;

1. The Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment, or imprisonment.

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation Defendant B: Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants additionally collect: The grounds for sentencing [the scope of recommendations made to the Defendants] under the latter part of Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic [the scope of recommendations made to the Defendants] under the basic area (6-1-4 months) of the type 2, such as brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic crimes subject to 19 years of age or older, [the decision of sentencing to the Defendants] [the period and profits of the Defendants running a sexual traffic establishment], the circumstances where the Defendants attempted to conceal the crimes committed during the enforcement period are observed, the Defendants seem to have closed down a sexual traffic establishment, there seems to have been no specific criminal history for the Defendants, and the degree of their participation in the crimes, etc., and all the conditions for sentencing indicated in the records and arguments.