The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in misunderstanding the legal principles, on the ground that only one-time right was seized by the defendant, 2 Chapters 2 (No. 1), 4 (No. 2), 4,000 won right (No. 3), 0-G906k, and 1 mobile phone (No. 3) for business purpose constitutes “goods provided for criminal acts” and “goods acquired through criminal acts”, and thus, should be confiscated pursuant to Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (the 2 year of suspended sentence in August and 120 hours of community service order) against an unfair defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts, such as brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic, provides that a person who commits an offense, such as brokerage, etc. of sexual traffic, shall confiscate money and valuables or other property acquired by such offense, and if such confiscation is impossible, the value thereof shall be additionally collected.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, since Chapter 2 (No. 1) and Chapter 4 (No. 2) of only 10,000 won are recognized as the fact that the defendant was the money acquired by committing the act of arranging sexual traffic in this case, etc., it should be confiscated pursuant to the former part of Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, etc., and since only one mobile phone for the above business purpose (No. 3), it is recognized as having been used as a means of the above crime, it should be confiscated pursuant to Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below omitted is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again made after pleading.