The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the penalty (the penalty of KRW 5 million, the additional penalty of KRW 11,265,000, imposed by the court below on the defendant) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The purpose of the collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic is to deprive a woman engaged in sexual traffic of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of the collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). In a case where part of the amount received from the offender, such as arranging sexual traffic, has been paid to the female engaged in sexual traffic, the scope of the collection is limited to the actual acquired portion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2223, May 14, 2009). Whether the collection is subject to the collection or the amount of the collection is not related to the facts of the constituent elements of the crime, and therefore, it is not necessary to prove it by evidence, but also should be recognized by evidence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008) In light of the above legal principles, we examine ex officio the profit amount arising from the referral of the similarity behavior to be collected from the defendant.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant in collusion with B, who arranged the similarity of 20,000 won among the money received from customers while operating the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dda, and paid 30,000 won to employees who first received 30,000 won in return for mediation. The defendant stated that he was paid 35,000 won from April 1, 201 to 35,000 won, and the employee of the above business was paid 20,000 won for each person, and the defendant stated that he received 20,000 won for the above business establishment, and the defendant operated the above business establishment from November 21, 201 to March 31, 2012.