All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles: It is unreasonable that the lower court did not sentence the Defendants to collect additional collection.

B. Improper sentencing 1) Defendants: The lower court’s each sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2) Prosecutor: The lower court’s each sentence against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether the subject matter of additional collection is subject to strict proof does not require any further strict proof. However, if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to additional collection, it may not be collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007). The following circumstances that can be acknowledged according to the records in the instant case, namely, as to the profits acquired by the Defendants through the instant crime, the Defendants’ statement (Evidence 796 pages) and the Defendant’s statement (Evidence 796 pages) stating that “the profits acquired by Defendant C are approximately KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000,000)” and “the profits obtained by Defendant C are not based on financial data or books (Evidence 986 side of the evidence record). However, there is no doubt about its credibility, and the ratio of distribution to Defendant C cannot be considered only when women and women were subject to additional collection of sexual traffic except for the distribution of profits to Defendant C, and thus, the Defendants’s statement of sexual traffic profits can only be calculated more.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not sentence collection to the defendants is just, and the prosecutor's assertion disputing this is without merit.

B. Sentencing is against each other’s mistake, and there is no record of the same kind of punishment.

However, all the Defendants act as a broker of sexual traffic for a long time outside the country.