The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant engaged in the act of arranging sexual traffic as stated in the facts charged, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged because it violated the rules of evidence, mismisunderstanding the facts or mismisunderstanding the legal principles.

The Defendant is a person who operates a business establishment that can engage in similar sexual intercourse with a well-known room and a waiting room, etc. installed with the trade name “D” as Kamsi-si B and 302.

No person shall arrange, solicit, or induce sexual traffic, provide a place for sexual traffic, or engage in any other conduct, such as arranging sexual traffic.

Nevertheless, on August 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) directed the police officer who pretended to be a customer in the above business place in order to receive KRW 80,00 from the police officer, to engage in similar sexual intercourse, and (b) assisted commercial sex acts by sending sexual traffic, female workers, into a smuggling, to arrange commercial sex acts; and (c) arranged commercial sex acts between July 21, 2014 and August 4, 2014, against unspecified customers who find the above business place.

Judgment

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court and the first instance court based on such legal doctrine, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the first instance court is conducted, and thus, the statement by the control police officer alone assisted the defendant’s similar sexual intercourse.