The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates a business establishment with a mutual marina in the name of “D” on the first floor of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C underground1.

At around 21:10 on October 19, 2015, the Defendant arranged sexual traffic by receiving 100,000 won from the male son who found his location at the above D business establishment and guiding the employees about 4 times of the above business establishment, giving 50,000 won per male son to 50,000 won per male son, and allowing the employees to engage in similar intercourse after doing so.

2. As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, there are ① the Defendant’s written statement and the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant, ② the E’s written statement and the police interrogation protocol of the E, ③ the witness F’s testimony.

The defendant's written statement and the police interrogation protocol of the defendant did not consent to the defendant as evidence, and the defendant, who is the original person, denies its contents, and thus, is not admissible as evidence.

On the other hand, F and Investigation Police Officers G stated that there was a timely statement that the Defendant made a confession of the facts charged in this case in this court.

However, the statement that the defendant led to the confession of a crime by the police can be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state pursuant to Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In order to recognize the admissibility of the witness's testimony, it shall be proved that the defendant's statement at the time of investigation was made under the "specific external situation that guarantees objectivity and fairness to the extent that the statement was made in the presence of a judge so that it can be the same as that of the statement made in the presence of a judge", and the prosecutor must prove the unique condition, and in particular, the protocol of interrogation prepared by a judicial police officer who is an investigative agency other than the prosecutor, as a prosecutor, should be proved by the prosecutor.