beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) leased four officetels to operate the instant commercial sex acts; and (b) spent rent of KRW 700,00 to KRW 750,00 for each month; and (c) such amount should be excluded from the additional collection charge against the Defendant; and (b) it is unreasonable to calculate the amount of additional collection based on the Defendant’s protocol of examination of the police officer; and (c) so,
2. Determination:
A. The collection of penalties under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is intended to deprive the public of unlawful profits through the act of arranging commercial sex acts in order to eradicate such act. Thus, the court may not arbitrarily reduce the amount of penalties.
However, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of the collection is limited to the actual profits acquired by the offender, and where part of the amount received by the actor, such as arranging sexual traffic, has been paid to the female sexual traffic, the scope of the collection is limited to the actual acquisition
However, since the cost of taxes, etc. paid by the offender in the course of performing the act of arranging sexual traffic is only one way to consume the money and goods acquired in return for the act of arranging sexual traffic or to justify his/her act, it shall not be deducted from the additional
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a crime, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008).
First of all, the defendant in collusion with Co-Defendant B of the court below on the operation of commercial sex acts from August 28, 2012 to September 10, 2012.