The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court, which omitted necessary additional collection, omitted the Defendant’s profit derived from the act of arranging sexual traffic, even though it should be additionally collected.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment for eight months, the suspension of execution two years, the community service order and confiscation for 80 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that a person who has committed an act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. shall confiscate money and valuables or other property that he/she has gained through such an offense, and where it is impossible to confiscate such money and valuables, the value thereof shall be additionally collected

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant committed the act of arranging sexual traffic for about three days from April 16, 2013 to April 18, 2013. Since a female, who is called a manager, has received 80,000 won in the case of 60% per customer, 10,000 won in the case of 80,000 won in the case of receiving 80,000 won in the case of receiving 30,000 won, 40,000 won in the case of receiving 30,00 won in the case of receiving 80,000 won in the case of 16, 5, 17 days in the case of sexual traffic customers, 4 days in the case of 18 days in the case of 16,00,000 won, 350,000 won in the case of 350,000 won in the case of 350,000 won in the above case of profits.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on necessary collection, and the prosecutor's assertion on this point is with merit.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, the decision of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

b) the evidence;