The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the portion of collection of additional charges by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the judgment of the court below which calculated the amount of additional charges of KRW 23,834,750 without deducting management expenses and expenses that were incurred in operating the business of this case is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of additional collection), is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the assertion of the punishment of an act of arranging sexual traffic. Since the purpose of the collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is to deprive the criminal of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of the collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the criminal. However, since tax and other expenses incurred by the criminal in the course of performing the act of arranging sexual traffic are only one way to consume the money and goods acquired in return for the act of arranging sexual traffic or to justify his/her act, the collection shall not be deducted from the amount of the collection. In addition, if it is impossible for the criminal to confiscate the money and goods or other property acquired by the criminal act of arranging sexual traffic in common with several persons, the value of profits actually acquired by the criminal act of arranging sexual traffic shall be collected individually, and if the individual amount of profits cannot be known, the total amount of profits shall be collected equally (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do22223, Aug. 20, 2014).