All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s sentencing is too heavy, and the amount of additional collection is excessive. B. The Prosecutor (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and the illegality of sentencing) 1) made a false statement actively about the circumstances of the operation of the Plaintiff’s business, the source of funds, the duties of employees, the process of introducing sexual traffic women, etc., while presenting false materials, thereby allowing the Defendant, who is the actual business owner, to escape.

Since the defendant ordered E to do such an act and paid money in return, the defendant's act also constitutes a principal offender.

2) Undue sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine in light of the evidence and the record, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, led the Defendant, the actual owner of the business, to escape.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant's act of aiding and abetting him does not constitute the crime of aiding and abetting E.

The measures to be judged not guilty are justifiable.

B. 1) First, we examine the amount of additional collection as to both parties’ argument of unfair sentencing.

Whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, and the recognition of the amount of collection is not related to the elements of crime, and thus strict proof is unnecessary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court based on the evidence, the lower court did not err in calculating the amount of collection based on the period of business indicated by the lower court, the number of average customers and the amount of money collected per customer.

① From June 3, 2016 to July 30, 2016, the card price settled in F orY “F orY” operated by the Defendant is KRW 47,164,00.