The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant obtained a profit of 3.88 million won through the business of arranging the sexual traffic in this case, the judgment of the court below which calculated the additional collection charge of 3.48 million won against the defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, three hundred hours of probation, three hundred hours of community service, and additional collection) is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. The offense of violation of the Immigration Control Act due to the employment of foreigners without status of sojourn is an ex officio investigation prior to judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, and the offense falls under Articles 94 subparagraph 9 and 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act, and such offense may be prosecuted upon an accusation by the head of the Regional Immigration Service under Article 101 (1) of the same Act.

However, even if examining the record, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an accusation by the head of the immigration control office, etc. against the violation of the Immigration Control Act due to employment of I among the facts charged in the instant case.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of the violation of the Immigration Control Act due to employment of I constitutes null and void due to violation of the provisions of the law, and thus, the prosecution should be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty

Therefore, the above part of the judgment of the court below should be reversed. The violation of the Immigration Control Act due to the employment of the above I and the remaining parts found guilty in the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence was rendered pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the argument of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles concerning the prosecutor's collection is still subject to the judgment of this court, and below.