All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles provide 5,000 won to women who receive 30,000 won from sexual buyers, and 7,000 won was given to women who receive 50,000 won, and 30,000 won was separately received from buyers in case of sexual traffic in addition to mathy. Therefore, when sexual buyers paid 60,000 won, the Defendant’s interest arising from the arrangement of sexual traffic should be calculated as 25,000 won per sexual buyer. The lower court calculated 30,000 won and calculated the surcharge, which is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence (one year and 2 months of imprisonment and 300,000 won, 5,7670,000 won, which was sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The purpose of collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is to deprive Defendant A of unlawful profits from the act of arranging commercial sex acts in order to eradicate the act of arranging commercial sex acts, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender. However, since the cost of tax, etc. incurred by the offender in the course of performing the act of arranging commercial sex acts is only one way to consume the money and valuables acquired in return for the act of arranging commercial sex acts or to justify his act, it is not necessary

On the other hand, the amount paid to a female sexual traffic (the "so-called commercialization") is only a profit from sexual traffic, not a profit from the act of arranging sexual traffic, and thus, it is in principle deducted from the additionally collected amount under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2223 Decided May 14, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do223 Decided July 14, 2013