A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant 10,897,675 won (additional charge) obtained profits through the brokerage of sexual traffic, and thus, should be collected as additional charge. However, the lower court erred by failing to collect additional charge.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Legal principles misunderstanding 1) Whether a person is subject to confiscation or collection, or recognition of collection amount, etc. are not related to the constituent elements of a crime, and thus, it is not necessary to prove strict facts, but also recognized by evidence. However, if it is impossible to specify criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it cannot be collected additionally.

Meanwhile, since the collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic aims to deprive the criminal of unlawful profits in order to eradicate such acts as brokerage of commercial sex acts, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the criminal (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008; 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007; 2007Do2451, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the criminal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008; 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007).

The argument is asserted.

① However, KRW 100,897,675 on the investigation report is the sum of card sales, etc. deposited in the agricultural cooperative account under the name of the Defendant from May 7, 2015 to December 23, 2015. The Defendant’s “D” entertainment shop ordinarily receives KRW 150,000 per male customer. The said amount is a liquor liquor (10 bottles, 10 per male customer).