A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From January 3, 2014 to July 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) leased 603, 606, and 1409, and had D, etc. employed as an employee, engage in sexual intercourse against a large number of unspecified customers; (b) received KRW 130,000 per hour from customers; and (c) paid KRW 80,000 to the employee; and (d) acquired by himself, thereby engaging in acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of D or E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on control field photographs;

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and the Selection of Imprisonment, comprehensively, with respect to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing and the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act shall be taken into account):

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. One of the main body of a computer confiscated as an additional collection, but the computer seems not to be confiscated because the defendant used it to prepare his/her own business account book. The additional collection pursuant to Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (based on the calculation of an additional collection charge) is intended to deprive him/her of unlawful profits caused by the act of arranging sexual traffic in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Thus, the defendant's expenses, such as taxes, etc. incurred in the course of performing the act of arranging sexual traffic, are merely one of the methods of consuming the money and valuables acquired in return for the act of arranging sexual traffic or justifying his/her act of arranging sexual traffic, and is not deducted from the additional collection amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). However, the cost paid to a woman of sexual traffic is