The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) court did not additionally collect criminal proceeds obtained by the defendant, and suspended the execution of imprisonment. The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. provides that the money and valuables or other property acquired by a person who has committed an offense, such as arranging sexual traffic, shall be confiscated, and if it is impossible to confiscate it, the value thereof shall be additionally collected;

The purpose of the additional collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic is to deprive the women engaged in sexual traffic of illegal profits in order to eradicate the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the scope of the additional collection is limited to the profits they actually acquired. The additional collection is limited to the amount actually acquired in cases where part of the amount they have received from them, such as arranging sexual traffic, has been paid to them. The additional collection is limited to the amount actually acquired, and the additional collection is merely a method of consuming the money and valuables acquired in return for the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc.,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008; 2009Do2223, May 14, 2009). Whether a person is subject to confiscation or collection, recognition of the amount of additional collection, etc. is not related to the facts constituting the elements of crime, and thus, requires strict certification is not required.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant operated a commercial sex business establishment for about 13 days from April 10, 2014 to April 22, 2014, and the Defendant.