The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of a fine of 6 million won imposed by the court below on the defendant in an unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

The recognition of the amount to be collected as additional collection is not related to the facts constituting the elements of crime itself, so strict proof is not required, and it is sufficient to prove only free evidence. According to the written statement (Evidence No. 61) prepared by the defendant, it can be recognized that the defendant gains profit equivalent to 10,325,000 won from the crime of this case. Thus, the court below's decision that did not separately impose additional collection on the defendant by rejecting the probative value of the written statement is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that a person who has committed a crime such as arranging sexual traffic shall confiscate money, goods or other property acquired by such crime, and if it is not possible to confiscate such money, goods or other property, 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 unlawful 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. In a case where part of the amount they have received from them, such as arranging sexual traffic, has been paid to them, the scope of the additional collection is limited to the actual amount they have actually acquired. 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; 2009Do223, May 14, 2009).