Defendant

A Imprisonment of 10 months and fines of 9,000,000 won, Defendant B of 5,000,000 won and Defendant D of 8 months.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant A, the first floor of the building located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, is the owner of a commercial sex acts business establishment under the trade name of “M” (hereinafter “N”), and Defendant B is the owner of the first floor of the building. Defendant B is the employee of the said business establishment, Defendant C is the owner of the said building.

1. Defendant A and Defendant B, from October 4, 2016 to October 10, 2016, Defendant B, at the immediately preceding business establishment around October 10, 2016, overall control over the employment of employees, management of earnings, etc., Defendant B, and Defendant B, after receiving delivery of KRW 90,00 to KRW 130,00 from the south of the purchase of the name in unsound sex, had female employees, such as P, etc., who had employed in advance, engage in an act of similarity that stimulates female workers into circumstances by stimulateing the male gender purchase by hand.

As a result, Defendants conspired to arrange sexual traffic for business purposes.

2. On August 12, 2016, Defendant C knew from the Seoul Local Police Agency on August 12, 2016 that “I” had been provided by Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City L and 1st floor as a place of sexual traffic.

Where the above building is continuously leased with a thickness, it may be punished pursuant to the Act as it constitutes an act of providing a building with knowledge of the fact that it is provided for sexual traffic under Article 19 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic.

Upon receipt of the notice "", the above MM business is engaged in commercial sex acts at the above M business establishment, and the defendant knew that he should terminate the rent relationship with the lessee of the above business establishment and express his intention to demand the return of possession and suspend the provision.

Nevertheless, the Defendant stated in the indictment by October 10, 2016 as of October 10, 2017, but it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the indictment on October 10, 2017, and even if it is corrected as above, it seems that there is no problem to guarantee the Defendant’s right to defense. Thus, it is corrected as above without the amendment process.

Any measure is taken while maintaining the lease relationship with Q. The first floor of the above building.