Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 22, 2014, the Defendant leased the building to D as the owner of the building set forth in Article 204 of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, but was under control when D was used as a "sexual traffic inside" as a prompt title, and received an investigation and notification from the Commissioner of the Incheon Local Police Agency to inform that "the first place was provided as a commercial sex acts place."

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) knew that E, a lessee who acquired the right to lease from D, was operating a massage place in the above building from May 14, 2015 to May 16, 2015; (b) concluded a lease agreement with E under the condition that E would receive KRW 2 million per month between E and E, and provided the said building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of forwarding documents related to the Gmast Site), investigation reports (a confirmation of a certified copy of the C building register);

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

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

1. The Defendant, on the ground of conviction of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, asserts that, at the time of new lease of the instant building, the lessee was not E but H, and that, in light of the circumstance that, when entering into a lease agreement and failing to engage in illegal business in the said building, E was unaware of the fact that E was trying to operate a commercial sex business establishment in the said building.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with E even though he/she knew that he/she would operate a re-commercial sex trafficking business establishment in the above building at the time.