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

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

1. Although Defendant A (E) was not accredited by the competent Mayor/Do governor, Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”), around 14:50 on May 10, 201, Defendant A: (a) divided a telegraph into 60 minutes by taking advantage of fingers, hair, scarbs, etc. to his/her name-free customers from the second floor of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul FF Building; (b) and (c) cutting off the arm’s length to 33,000 won in return for the arm’s length, and (d) took place against customers for 2 days from May 9, 201 to May 13:40, 201, and (e) took place against customers for profit.

2. Defendant B (hereinafter “H”) did not obtain the recognition of a massage from the competent Mayor/Do governor, but, on May 10, 201, around 21:20, Defendant B: (a) took part in a telecom for the purpose of making profits against the average of approximately 4-5 customers per day from February 201 to May 13:40, 201, in a way that he/she divided the guns, such as fingers, hairs, hairs, blus, blus, and blus, into 60 minutes, by taking advantage of fingers, blus, and bluss, etc., and cutting off the guns, and received 33,000 won from the customers for the said 60 minutes; and (b) 33:00 won from February 2, 201 to May 13:40, 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the first trial records;

1. Each statement made by Co-defendant I and J in the first trial record;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police interrogation protocol to K;

1. The main sentence of Article 88 and Article 82 (1) Governing the relevant provisions concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Determination on the Defendants of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and their defense counsel’s assertion

1. The provisions of the Medical Service Act of this case that grant qualification to the visually impaired only is unconstitutional or highly likely to be constitutional.

2. The Constitutional Court Decision 2006Hun-Ma1098 Decided October 30, 2008 and the Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ma10 decided October 30, 201.