The client came to Ongang Law Firm because she was accused of engaging in prostitution by visiting a massage parlor, paying for a massage, and performing similar acts. ■ Case Issue The client had visited a massage parlor and received a massage, but the massage was too different from the type of massage she expected, but she was unable to protest and received the massage anyway, so she had to argue that it did not constitute prostitution because she did not visit the parlor to engage in similar behavior in the first place. The defense team of Ongang Law Firm confirmed that the client was a woman and the masseur was a man, and that they were both naked and unable to protest, and clarified the facts to avoid any other misunderstandings through investigation practice. In the defense opinion, the defense team argued that the client did not intend to engage in prostitution and did not have any suspicion that a similar act would be performed because she had seen positive reviews on the Internet, but rather that the masseur deceived the client and pretended to be a massage.