The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Among the customers who were found in the “C” where the Defendant had operated a mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, those who did not engage in commercial sex acts and were frighten and returned to the Defendant. During the business period indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant was able to operate the said establishment only once a week of female employees and once a month of physiological leave, and the Defendant did not operate the said establishment during a life-saving period, such as a memorial stone and Gu administration.

In addition, the Defendant spent 30,000,000 won in total as operating expenses of “C” (=3,000,000 won per month x 10 months).

Nevertheless, the court below erred in calculating an excessive surcharge on the premise that the defendant operated his business without a holiday of 409 days and made a profit of 250,000 won a day.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s error of unfair sentencing is against and there is no record of criminal punishment, etc., the sentence of the lower court imposing an additional collection of 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 160 hours of community service order, probation, and 40 hours of sexual traffic prevention instruction, confiscation, 102, 250,000 won is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s profits derived from the operation of the instant sexual traffic establishment from September 1, 2013 to October 14, 2014 (i.e., KRW 102,250,000 (=250,000/1 day x 409 days) and collected the said money from the Defendant.

B. (1) The decision at the party hearing was made after the defendant stated that he has been employed by two female employees and operated the instant sexual traffic business establishment (Article 40, 59, and 116 of the evidence record). Thus, the defendant stated 250,000 won as average daily income (=50,000 won per time of sexual traffic - 70,000 won paid to female employees - 70,000 won per day) x 50,000 won paid to the defendant's employees) at the same time.