The portion of collection among the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

37.6 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The remainder of the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 153, 590,000 won for additional collection, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable, and the amount of additional collection was also calculated.

Judgment

Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. provides that a person who has committed a crime such as arranging sexual traffic shall confiscate money, goods or other property acquired by such crime, and when it is not possible to confiscate such money, goods or other property, the value thereof shall be additionally collected.

The purpose of the collection under the above provision is to deprive a woman of unlawful profits from the act of arranging sexual traffic in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of the collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender. The scope of the collection is limited to the portion actually acquired in case where part of the amount received by the actor, such as arranging sexual traffic, has been paid to the woman of sexual traffic. However, the expenses of buildings, rents, taxes, etc. incurred in the course of performing the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. are merely the method of consuming

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008; 2009Do2223, May 14, 2009): Provided, That the recognition of the amount of additional collection, etc. is not related to the facts constituting a crime, and thus it is not necessary to prove it strictly, but it is also necessary to establish it by evidence. However, if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to additional collection, it shall be reasonable to determine the amount of additional collection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do988 Decided April 7, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451 Decided June 14, 2007, etc.). The lower court determined that the Defendant’s account deposit details among the details of the Defendant’s account deposit and withdrawal, added the amount of this case to the sum obtained by deducting the details of the Defendant’s account denied.