Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of the D Building No. 503 at the time of the Government.

From March 2014, the Defendant leased No. 503 above to E, but around September 22, 2015, the Defendant controlled sexual traffic intermediary business with the trade name “F” at the above place, and was investigated by the Council-Government Police Station on October 2, 2015.

Nevertheless, the Defendant continued to lease the above place to E and received rent of KRW 2.9 million each month from the lessor E and the sub-lessee G engaged in sexual traffic mediation business with the trade name of “F” until March 2, 2016.

Ultimately, from the end of January 2016 to March 2, 2016, the Defendant provided a building to E with the knowledge of the fact that the above 503 subparagraph was provided for sexual traffic, thereby engaging in the act of arranging sexual traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. A copy of investigation report (on-site report), photograph of control site, each real estate lease contract, details of deposit transactions, and statement (A);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Mediation, etc. of elective sexual traffic for facts constituting an offense and Article 19 of the Act on the Punishment of such Acts;

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

1. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel in the determination of the issues of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the issue of the provisional payment order, and the lessee E did not operate a commercial sex business establishment after September 22, 2015. Since the former lessee G was unaware of the fact that he operated a commercial sex business establishment, the Defendant did not engage in the act of arranging commercial sex acts, such as providing a commercial sex business place, and the Defendant engaged in the act of arranging commercial sex

It argues that it is not the business of arranging sexual traffic.

The term "act of arranging, etc. sexual traffic" under Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as homicideing and arranging sexual traffic, is provided for sexual traffic.