beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by estimating the number of cases of arranging sexual traffic only by the average number of cases of arranging sexual traffic per day during the partial period of the instant crime, and by calculating the amount of additional collection, it did not deduct the profits acquired by the management staff, etc., thereby excessively adding the amount to the Defendant.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 40 hours of attending the course of the sexual traffic prevention and additional collection 56 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is sufficient when it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the Defendant is true, not a processed one, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the offense is not recognized, even if it is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the offense, and it is sufficient to prove the facts constituting the offense as a whole as evidence of conviction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do2343, May 29, 2008; 2011Do8015, Sept. 29, 2011); whether the confession is subject to additional collection or whether the amount of additional collection is recognized need not require strict proof.
(1) The scope of the penalty surcharge under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is limited to the amount actually acquired by the offender in the course of the act of arranging commercial sex acts, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do346, Jun. 22, 1993; 2006Do9314, Mar. 15, 2007). The purpose of the penalty surcharge under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is to deprive the offender of unjust enrichment for the purpose of eradicating the act of arranging commercial sex acts, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008).