The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of 10 months, the surcharge of 101,260,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected against the Defendant.

However, it is recognized that a sexual traffic brokerage business is a crime detrimental to the sound sexual morals and is not good, and that the defendant has repeatedly committed the instant crime despite the fact that he had been punished by a suspended sentence of imprisonment twice due to the commission of sexual traffic; the period of the instant crime is a long term and the benefit accrued therefrom is very high; and the lower court is recognized to have set an additional collection amount in consideration of the defendant's business period and criminal profits based on the defendant's statement (363 pages No. 363 of the evidence list) and account transaction details (Evidence No. 28).

In this regard, the Defendant asserts that in calculating the amount of collection, rent, electricity fee, etc. that the Defendant spent to operate a commercial sex business establishment should be considered. However, the expenses spent in the course of engaging in the act, such as arranging commercial sex acts, are not merely a method that consumes money acquired in return for the referral of commercial sex acts or justify his/her act, and thus, it does not constitute a deduction from the amount of collection (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1859, Apr. 11, 2013). Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court after the judgment of the lower court, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.