Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a sexual traffic business establishment under the trade name of “C” in Ansan-si B and 3.

At around 19:40 on August 29, 2017, the Defendant, while carrying on business with the smuggling and the red sea, etc. at the immediately preceding business establishment, engaged in commercial sex acts, such as arranging sexual traffic, from around December 17, 2016 to the said temporary date, by allowing the police officer in charge of crackdown who was pretended to be customers, to have sexual intercourse at KRW 100,000 in cash.

Summary of Evidence

1. The statements of witnesses E and F in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the fourth trial records;

1. On the grounds that internal investigation reports and investigation reports [the defendant and his defense counsel alleged that the defendant did not perform the act of arranging sexual traffic, but the following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the defendant's assertion that D worked in the name of "H" at the business place operated by the defendant, i.e., the defendant's work in the name of "H", ii) he decided to engage in sexual intercourse in accordance with the request of "H", iii) he entered into the sea sea with water and mixed sea, and she had already been used or has not been used at the business place of this case, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was engaged in arranging sexual traffic

1. Article 19 (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and the Selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Claims regarding the investigation of naval vessels;

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the prosecution procedure of this case is unlawful, since the police officer who visited as a customer by pretending to be a customer had a criminal intent-oriented naval investigation.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant had already been aware of.