Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million, by a fine of KRW 500,00,000, by a fine of KRW 500,00,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates the Seo-gu E and 3rd floor “F” business in Seo-gu, Daejeon, and Defendant B and C are employees who work as a head office in the above business.

1. From February 5, 201 to June 2, 2012, from February 2, 2011 to June 2, 203: (a) Defendant A employed Defendant B and C as a marina branch of the said business office, and had them receive KRW 100,000 each for profit-making purposes from G (Nam, 40 years of age) and received KRW 100,000 from G (Nam, 40 years of age), etc.; (b) Defendant A performed an massage operation by means of completing the flabing and completing the flab of the flab, such as the inner part and the telegraph bridge.

2. Defendants B and C performed massage operations for profit-making purposes from April 2, 2012 to June 03:00, and from May 2, 2011 to June 2, 2012 to June 2, 203: (a) Defendant C performed massage operations in a manner that the aforementioned rates are harming the massage and receiving part of the charges from customers from each customer; and (b) Defendant C performed massage operations for profit-making purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the suspect interrogation of each of the Defendants

1. Application of statutes to on-site photographs, written confirmations, and respective persons;

1. Relevant Articles 91, 88, and 82 (1) of the Medical Service Act concerning criminal facts and the Defendants who choose punishment: The provisions of Articles 91, 88, and 82 (1);

1. Defendants in custody in the workhouse: The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted that the provisions of the Medical Service Act, which enables persons with visual disabilities to engage in massage business, are against the Constitution by infringing on the essential contents of the freedom of occupation of persons without visual disabilities. However, it is difficult to view the said provisions to be in violation of the Constitution, which goes beyond the limit of the legislation that restricts fundamental rights under the Constitution, thereby infringing on the essential contents of the freedom of occupation of persons without visual disabilities. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14006, Dec. 22, 2011). The part of innocence is not guilty.