The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant received KRW 130,000 per case or KRW 140,000 per 1 case from the customers of the instant business establishment in return for sexual intercourse, and paid KRW 70,000 or KRW 90,00 per 1 case to the women engaged in sexual intercourse. Thus, this part of the amount should be excluded from the amount of additional collection against the defendant, but the court below collected all the amount that the defendant paid to the women engaged in sexual intercourse from the defendant. Thus

(The appellate brief submitted by the Defendant stated that the fine of KRW 9.2 million, which was declared by the lower court, is too heavy, but the Defendant’s appellate brief and the defense counsel’s supplementary appellate brief are considered to have errors in calculating the amount of the additional collection declared by the lower court, and the judgment is made on February 2.

A. The purpose of the additional collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is to deprive a woman engaged in sexual traffic of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of the additional collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). In a case where part of the amount received from the offender, such as arranging sexual traffic, has been paid to the female engaged in sexual traffic, the scope of the additional collection is limited to the actual acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2223, May 14, 2009). Whether the additional collection is subject to collection or the amount of additional collection is not related to the constituent elements of the crime, and it is not necessary to prove strictly, but it is also necessary to recognize the amount of additional collection through evidence.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008).

With respect to this case, the Health Council, the original court, and the original court shall lawfully investigate and adopt the case.