The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 25 of the Punishment of Acts, Including Mediation of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (hereinafter “Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts”) provides for the so-called necessary sunset or collection of penalty provisions, which meet the requirements, the court shall order the confiscation or collection of penalty.

In addition, where the appellate court reverses a confiscation on the ground that the confiscation did not have been declared, the appellate court’s judgment cannot be reversed by specifying only that part of the confiscation did not exist, and thus, the appellate court’s judgment should be reversed in its entirety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5822, Oct. 28, 2005; 2015Do3351, Jul. 23, 2015). On the other hand, since the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is arbitrary, the issue of whether to confiscate an article that meets the requirements of confiscation is attributable to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.

A. From March 1, 2016 to August 3, 2016, the Defendant operated a marina shop where sexual traffic is possible, and on June 23, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 130,000 in return for allowing B to engage in sexual intercourse with E, a customer. On the facts charged, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order, and collected KRW 130,00 from the Defendant.

B. On August 3, 2016, the prosecutor appealed all the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of the illegality of sentencing, and subsequently requested the Defendant to amend the indictment to add KRW 130,000 to the facts charged that the Defendant received KRW 130,00 in return for the Defendant’s act of sexual intercourse with his/her nameless customers, and the lower court granted permission.

The prosecutor of the court below's first trial date is admissible as evidence that the defendant engaged in the act of arranging sexual traffic as a business, and the police officer who controlled the defendant's business places in which the defendant's business places are operated is 50,000 won (No. 1) issued by the Bank of Korea from the defendant, and the Bank of Korea.