The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the amount of additional collection) ① The lower court recognized the Defendant and C as a joint principal offender, a joint principal offender, and a crime aided and abetting B, and thus, should have collected the total amount of profit by dividing it to three persons if the crime profit of each of the Defendant, C, and B, the accomplice, is based on the amount of profit or if such calculation is impossible. However, the lower court

② The lower court calculated the profit on the basis of the details excessively appropriated in the “Rive Family Register” of the Defendant without clear evidence as to the sales, operating period, and per unit of sexual traffic business.

(3) The lower court did not deduct the sales from the Defendant’s additional collection charge for a legitimate marina business, other than the money paid to C and B and commercial sex acts.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The purpose of the collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging sexual traffic is to deprive the offender of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of the collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender. In a case where the offender, such as arranging sexual traffic, has paid part of the amount received from the offender to his/her employees or her employees, the scope of the collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender, excluding the amount paid to his/her employees and her employees, and the expenses (such as building rents, taxes, public charges, various operating expenses, etc.) disbursed in the course of engaging in the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. is merely a method of consuming the money and valuables acquired in return for the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc., not to deduct the collection from the amount of collection (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008; 2014Do1075, Nov. 27, 2014>