All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In a misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to additional collection, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine in calculating the additional collection charge against the Defendants (the additional collection amount per KRW 960,000 from the Defendants).

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, two years of suspended sentence, fine of ten million won, observation of protection, community service order, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year, three years of suspended execution, three years of fine of fine, surveillance of protection, community service order of 200 hours of 200 hours, confiscation, additional collection) is too uneasible.

Judgment

A. The lower court: (a) acknowledged that the Defendants arranged a total of 96 times of sexual traffic; (b) recognized the profits arising from the arrangement of sexual traffic as KRW 20,000 per time; and (c) additionally collected KRW 960,000 (=(96 x 20,000) ± 2) from the Defendants.

2) Regarding the frequency of sexual traffic arranged by the defendants, according to the account books of the Ulsan-gu Iel operated by the defendants, it is recognized that the defendants engaged in the act of arranging sexual traffic 96 times in total (Article 3, 656, and 658 of the evidence record). On this issue, a prosecutor asserts that the defendants should additionally collect profits during the period before the defendants engaged in the act of arranging sexual traffic in operation of E, but it is reasonable that the reasons for confiscation and additional collection such as whether the defendants are subject to confiscation or whether they are subject to confiscation or whether they are subject to confiscation or whether they are subject to collection are not related to the elements of crime, and it is not necessary to prove that they should be recognized by evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9858 delivered on April 7, 2006). The only evidence submitted by a prosecutor is that the defendants arranged sexual traffic ing more than 96 times as above.

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) Next, the Defendants acquired sexual traffic in the course of arranging sexual traffic.