Defendant

All appeals filed by A, C and Prosecutor against Defendant C, D, and E are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A - misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of unfair sentencing 1) since Defendant paid a large amount of expenses while running a business of arranging sexual traffic, the actual revenues of the Defendant are not reasonable. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment which, without deducting the above expenses at all, took the entire amount (3,6790,000 won) paid as the price for arranging sexual traffic as the basis for calculating the amount of additional collection, has erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (8 months of imprisonment and confiscation) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant C- The lower court’s punishment on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, confiscation, and collection of 7850,000 won) is excessively unreasonable.

C. The Prosecutor (Defendant C, D, and E) - The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant D’s imprisonment for a period of four-month suspension of execution, confiscation, Defendant E: imprisonment for a period of ten months and a fine of five million won, additional collection of KRW 7850,00) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the additional collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is intended to deprive his/her employees of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the acts of arranging commercial sex acts, etc. Therefore, the scope of the additional collection is reasonable to deem that the criminal is limited to the profits actually acquired. However, since the expenses, such as taxes and salaries paid by his/her accomplices in the course of performing the acts of arranging commercial sex acts, etc. are 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 their acts, the additional collection is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do223, May 14, 2009). Meanwhile, if an employee commits a crime of arranging commercial sex in collusion with his/her employer, the additional collection shall be deemed as a joint principal