The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

, however, the defendant.

1. Defendant B’s judgment on Defendant B’s appeal was sentenced to the lower judgment on April 7, 2016, and filed an appeal against the lower judgment on April 14, 2016, and received notification of the receipt of the notification of receipt of the trial records from the court on May 4, 2016, and did not file the statement of grounds of appeal within 20 days from the due filing deadline for the statement of grounds of appeal. The petition of appeal filed by Defendant B does not contain any grounds for appeal, and there is no ground for ex officio examination on the record.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) - misunderstanding the legal principles - The cash confiscated by Defendant A constitutes money and valuables obtained from the instant crime, and should be confiscated pursuant to Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic. Since the cell phone seized by Defendant A constitutes the goods provided for the instant crime, it should be confiscated pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act. In addition, since Defendant A obtained profits of KRW 8720,00 due to the instant crime, it should be additionally collected pursuant to Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic. Nevertheless, the lower court, which did not render a sentence of confiscation and additional collection against Defendant A, erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation and additional collection. 2) - Unfair sentencing sentencing of the lower court, which the lower court declared against the Defendants, is so unfair that all of the punishments imposed by the lower court (one year of suspended sentence, two years of imprisonment, probation, social service, 80 hours of imprisonment, six months of suspended execution, six years of execution, and 40 hours of social service.

B. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on forfeiture, first of all, we examine the seized cash (Article 3694 No. 3694 of the Military Prosecutors’ Office 2015).

According to each evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above cash was the defendant A with respect to the Htel No. 915, which is a sexual traffic business establishment under the crime of this case (paragraph 2 at the market).