The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles: The judgment of the court below which did not confiscate the evidence No. 3 obtained by Defendant B through the act of arranging sexual traffic, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the necessary sunset under the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as arranging sexual traffic, which affected the conclusion

B. Illegal sentencing: Penalty against the Defendants (Defendant B: one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, three years of probation observation, order of community service of 120 hours of probation, confiscation of evidence No. 2, Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for August, suspended execution, two years of probation, observation of protection, confiscation of evidence No. 120 hours of community service order, confiscation of evidence No. 1, other Defendants: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, suspended execution, two years of probation, observation of protection, and order of community service for 120 hours) are deemed unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B

(a) Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging sexual traffic provides that a person who has committed an offense, such as arranging sexual traffic, shall confiscate money and valuables or other property acquired by such offense, and if it is impossible to confiscate such money and valuables, the equivalent value thereof shall

The purpose of confiscation is to deprive the public of illegal profits from the act in order to eradicate the act such as arranging sexual traffic.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that Defendant B received 20,000 Won Won 2 and 30,000 Won 3 in return for arranging sexual traffic.

According to the above facts, evidence Nos. 2 and 3 was the money and valuables that Defendant B acquired from a crime, and the court below did not confiscate only evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 3.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the necessary sunset under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the part of the judgment below as to

3. The above defendants A, C, D, E, and F are all the defendants.