[1] Whether property generated from a violation of Article 25(1)2 of the former Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act is subject to confiscation or collection under Articles 9 and 10 of the former Act on Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (affirmative)

[2] Whether an offender should deduct expenses incurred from criminal proceeds from additional collection in order to obtain criminal proceeds (negative)

[1] Article 25(1)2 of the former Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7196 of March 22, 2004); Article 2 subparag. 1 [Attachment Table] 13, 9, and 10 of the former Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (amended by Act No. 7196 of March 22, 2004) / [2] Article 10 of the former Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (amended by Act No. 7196 of March 22, 2004)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do440 decided May 26, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1578)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Barun, Attorney Jeong Jong-chul

Suwon District Court Decision 2005No964 decided September 5, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Examining the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below in the record, the court below is just and acceptable to find the defendant guilty of committing a violation of the Act on the Sound Records, Video Products, and Game Products of this case and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc., and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or erroneous determination of facts due to

In addition, with respect to the violation of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (amended by the Act on the Punishment of Acts, including the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, Act No. 7196 of March 22, 2004; hereinafter the same), the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision after compiling the adopted evidence, and found the defendant guilty of the violation of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc., by employing the same as the termination of the lease period with Non-Indicted 1, since the defendant was well aware of the overall operation of the last place of this case including the fact that Non-Indicted 1 is taking the sales status of the last place of this case by receiving a report from Non-Indicted 1 on the sales status of the last place of the last place of this case. In light of the records, the fact finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7196 of Mar. 22, 2004; hereinafter “Act”) provides that property arising from a violation of Article 25 (1) 2 of the same Act shall be subject to confiscation or collection under Article 9 and Article 10 of the Act pursuant to subparagraph 1 [Attachment Table] subparagraph 13 of Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation, Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, and thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point shall not be accepted.

In addition, in order to obtain criminal proceeds in collecting criminal proceeds, even if it was disbursed from criminal proceeds, it is not only a method of consuming criminal proceeds but it is not a deduction from criminal proceeds to be collected.

The court below did not deduct the expenses that the defendant spent as expenses for the operation of the entertainment room and marina business in this case, and collected them from the defendant, on the ground that the defendant employed the non-indicted 3, 4, and 5 as a business president or an employee, etc. and operated a speculative business in the entertainment room in this case; the rent that the non-indicted 1 provided the marina business in this case as a place of business for the brokerage of prostitution; and the earnings that the non-indicted 2 employed the non-indicted 1 as a place of business for the marina business in this case; and the profits that the defendant directly provided the marina business in this case as a principal of the crime in this case; according to the above legal principles and records, the above decision of the court below is just and acceptable; and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the collection as prescribed by the law.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)