A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

From October 29, 2014 to October 30, 2014, the Defendant operated a “D” marina shop in Sejong City from the around October 29, 2014 to around October 30, 2014, and employed female employees, and made the said female employees receive 80,000 won per man-child per day from male customers who found the said marina shop business place at least once a day average, and made the said female employees take 80,000 won by hand and scam the sexual organ of the said male customers, and made the Defendant and female employees divide one half of the amount received from the customers.

Accordingly, the defendant committed commercial sex acts such as arranging sexual traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of statutes on site 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. The additional collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (based on the calculation of additional collection charges) is intended to deprive a woman engaged in sexual traffic of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Thus, the expenses, such as taxes, etc., incurred by the offender in the course of performing the acts of arranging sexual traffic, are not merely a method of consuming the money and goods acquired in return for the acts of arranging sexual traffic or of justifying his/her acts, and it is not a deduction from the additional collection amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008): Provided, that the cost of sexual traffic paid to the woman engaged in sexual traffic is anticipated to be paid to the woman engaged in sexual traffic from the beginning,