The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Cash KRW 40,00 (No. 1) and one cellular phone (No. 2) possessed by the defendant at the time of crackdowning down the KIKO operated by the defendant of mistake of facts fall under the items provided or provided for the crime of this case, and should be confiscated in accordance with Article 48 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the court below's decision that did not confiscate subparagraphs 1 and 2 of seized evidence is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, while operating a key room, recruited workers for the purpose of having them find a job by obscene act in the key room. On December 6, 2013, the police officer, after making a promise to employ 70,000 won, and entered the above establishment, and had the female workers recruited by the Defendant enter the establishment. At the time of crackdown, the Defendant had 40,000 won (Evidence No. 1) with the police officer’s receipt of 70,000 won (Evidence No. 1). In addition, if the phone calls from the above establishment, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant was connected to the cell phone (Evidence No. 2) of the Defendant’s cell phone (Evidence No. 2). However, solely on the foregoing basis, even if the Defendant offered or attempted to be offered for the purpose of having workers find a job with obscene act, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant fell under the requirement of confiscation under Article 18(1)4 of the Criminal Act.

However, the Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8174 Decided April 24, 2008, which is subject to the limitation by the principle of proportionality that applies to the general public in punishment, or Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8174 Decided April