A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

From March 12, 2014 to April 2, 2014, the Defendant kept 825, 917, and 1207 of the Seo-gu Seoul Building, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, on the ground that D, who is female employees recruited at the Internet Embrate site, engaged in sexual traffic over about 10 times against male customers in the room of the above C building, and that D received 13 to 140,000 won from the other male, and engaged in sexual traffic, etc. for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against D, E, or F;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on officetels lease contract;

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. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, etc. and Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act (based on the calculation of an additional collection charge) aims to deprive the criminal of unlawful profits from the act of arranging sexual traffic in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Thus, the criminal's expenses, such as taxes, etc. incurred in the course of performing the act of arranging sexual traffic, are not merely a method of consuming the money and goods acquired in return for the act of arranging sexual traffic or of justifying his/her act, and it does not require the criminal to deduct the amount of the additional collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). However, the price paid to the female sexual traffic is expected to be paid to the female sexual traffic from the