2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendants prior to the determination of ex officio.

Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that a person who has committed a crime such as arranging sexual traffic shall confiscate money, goods or other property acquired by such crime, and if it is impossible to confiscate such money, goods or other property, their value shall be collected.

Accordingly, the lower court omitted the amount of money and other property acquired by the Defendants through the arrangement of commercial sex acts, and where it is impossible to confiscate the money and other property because they were not seized, the lower court should additionally collect the value thereof.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on necessary confiscation or collection.

However, in this case where only the defendants appealed, it cannot be sentenced to a new collection in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the above illegality of the judgment below does not affect the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed.

B. The Defendants were under the first and second control and continued to engage in the act of arranging sexual traffic by leasing a new officetel until the third crackdowns, Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, and the act of arranging sexual traffic has no significant social harm, such as damage to human dignity and harm to sound sexual culture and good morals, and other unfavorable circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, environment, size of the instant sexual traffic business establishment, operation period, balance with the sentencing in the same case.