성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant’s profit derived from the instant crime by mistake of fact is much less than eight million won.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which sentenced 8 million won to the defendant is erroneous as to the additional collection charge.
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the sentence of 8 months, the suspended sentence of 2 years, the fine of 5 million won, the community service order of 120 hours, the confiscation, and the additional collection of 8 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The court below held that the defendant's 80,000 won (=40,000 won x 40,000 won x 50,000 won) calculated by deeming that the defendant's average 50,000 won per customer (i.e., KRW 130,00 won received from the customer - KRW 80,000) per day when running for 40 days during the crime of this case during the crime of this case, are determined as the amount of additional collection (Evidence No. 962 of the evidence record) (ii) the defendant's office stated that the actual business day during the crime of this case is 40 days, the average number of customers is 4,000 won per day, and 130,000 won per customer and made a statement that 50,000 won remaining after giving 80,000 won per customer as profits, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.
subsection (b) of this section.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. We look at the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, and there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant. However, the crime of this case was committed by employing foreign women, etc., and thus, the crime of this case is bad in the nature of the crime. The defendant, even before the crime of this case, committed the crime of this case, was moved to the same place while regulating sexual traffic intermediary business, and the defendant was sentenced four times to imprisonment with prison labor due to fraud