The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The defendant above.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to five million won) against the Defendant is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts such as Mediation, etc. of Ex officio Determination of Commercial Sex Acts provides that a person who has committed an offense under Article 19 of the above Act shall confiscate money and valuables or other property acquired as a crime, and if confiscation is impossible, the equivalent value thereof shall be additionally collected.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant received the profits of 80,000 won (=40,000 won x 20 times) along with A as a crime in the judgment below, and paid double KRW 100,000 to A, who received at least 1,40,000 won at one time of sexual traffic.

The defendant made a statement (Evidence No. 286-288 of the evidence record), and the facts charged in this case are that the defendant has arranged commercial sex acts about about 20 times with A for business purposes.

section 23 of this title.

Therefore, the lower court stated to the effect that, in cases where several persons jointly engaged in an act, such as arranging commercial sex acts, etc., 40,000 won (=80,000 won ± 2) against the Defendant, if it is impossible to confiscate the money, valuables and other property acquired from the crime, the value of each accomplice's actual profit shall be collected individually, and if it is not possible to identify the individual benefit amount, the total profit amount shall be collected equally (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do223, May 14, 2009). The Defendant and A stated to the effect that "A shall manage the profits of commercial sex acts, but at least 80,000 won per day, only 40,000 won per day is given to the Defendant, and no individual benefit amount shall be collected equally (see Articles 276 and 285 of the evidence record).

additional collection; and

Although the judgment of the court below should have been omitted, the court below erred and omitted.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, on the ground that the above ground of reversal ex officio is reversed.