The judgment below

Of the defendants, the part of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The defendant 7,625.

1. In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, and the arrangement of sexual traffic in this case is required to cause severe harm to society, the punishment imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and 120 hours of community service (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The purpose of the additional collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is to deprive a woman engaged in sexual traffic of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of the additional 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 additional collection is limited to the actual acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2223, May 14, 2009). Whether the additional collection is subject to collection or the amount of additional collection is not related to the constituent elements of the crime, and it is not necessary to prove strictly, but it is also necessary to recognize the amount of additional collection through evidence.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008).

In light of the above legal principles, we examine ex officio the profit amount from the brokerage of sexual traffic to be collected from the defendant.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the defendant, as stated in the annexed list Nos. 1 through 30, took profits of 14,650,000 won in total by arranging sexual traffic to female employees as stated in the annexed list Nos. 1 through 30, and ② the defendant received 300,000 won in total from J and K in the annexed list No. 31,32, and K in return for arranging sexual traffic.