The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On December 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 8:00 a.m., operated by the victim C in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (b) provided sexual traffic regardless of the fact that the victim had engaged in sexual traffic; (c) provided sexual traffic; and (d) provided a bath for approximately 20 minutes in a large amount.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's female business by force.

2. Even based on the victim’s statement at the investigative agency (16th page of the investigation record), it is confirmed that the Defendant did not have any guest while searching for and leaving the CCTV image materials even though the Defendant had no guest, as described in the facts charged, was found to have taken the place several times. However, there was no such fact as leaving the customer at the time or leaving the existing customer.

Therefore, the defendant's above behavior was practically obstructed by the victim's business.

It is difficult to see it.

In light of the foregoing circumstances, the police also sent the case to the prosecution by “non-prosecution (no suspicion) opinion” (see the written opinion), but the prosecution also prosecuted interference without any separate investigation or additional confirmation.

In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant interfered with the victim's female business at the time.

3. Ultimately, the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.