All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the criminal proceeds due to Defendant A’s mistake of facts and assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles (in relation to collection), are the amount calculated by deducting the amount that Defendant A received from customers from the amount that Defendant A received, credit card fees, and 90,000 won for certified massage treatment, the lower court, without considering such amount, has erred by imposing an additional collection of KRW 186,080,000 as indicated in the lower judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. intends to deprive Defendant A of unlawful profits from the act of arranging commercial sex acts in order to eradicate the act of arranging commercial sex acts, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of the collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender. However, since the cost of taxes, etc. incurred by the offender in the course of performing the act of arranging commercial sex acts is only one of the ways to consume the money and valuables acquired in return for the act of arranging commercial sex acts or to justify his act, the collection shall not be deducted from the amount of the collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008; 2009Do2223, May 14, 2009). The amount of money paid by Defendant A for various purposes, including credit card commission, taxes, cleaning expenses, etc., is nothing more than a kind for preventing the act of this.