The defendant shall be innocent.

1. From Jun. 14, 2016 to Jun. 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) promised to keep sexual traffic women D only with D’s conditions at a mobile phone-type site (hereinafter “C”); (b) moved to “Gelel” in the vicinity of the building in the Cheongju-gu E-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; and (c) paid KRW 130,000 in cash from the Gel to “Gelel” located in the Cheongju-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; and (d) made sexual traffic by entering into the Gel with the female and the single sexual intercourse.

2. The Defendant divided the conversation into D and C, and met with D, but only after getting off the vehicle and getting off D, it did not constitute sexual traffic.

The argument is asserted.

On the other hand, as evidence proving the facts charged, D's statement, which is the opposite party to sexual traffic, was the only evidence, and D consistently engaged in sexual traffic in the police, prosecutor's investigation, and court.

statement.

D, from April 2016 to June 30, 2016, the police stated that D had sexual traffic written to C, and the prosecution also had the interview with other men through C.

Although this court made statements, it stated that there is only 10,000 won per man for sexual traffic, and D received 1,30,000 won in cash in return for sexual traffic and made a shower relationship with each other once after having received 1,30,000 won in cash.

In spite of the specific statement, the prosecutor received money after completing the sexual intercourse.

Although memory is not well-known in the court, the statement on the point of receipt of money is inconsistent with the statement by stating that the memory received money after completion of a sexual relationship is more clear. The fact that sexual traffic is the first and the memory on the point of receipt of money is no longer likely to be confused once, and D does not make any statement about physical characteristics other than the defendant's appearance or conversation between the defendant and the defendant within the telecom.