All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable for the Defendant (an additional collection of KRW 3,536,132) to the extent that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (misunderstanding the legal principles and improper sentencing) 1) Of five co-offenders in the operation of K's sexual traffic business establishments, two of the five co-offenders in the operation of K's sexual traffic business establishments are merely employees, the above business revenues of KRW 14,228,00 should be divided into three co-offenders and collected in installments. The prosecutor's appeal of X's "X" stated in the judgment of the court below as "P," but the reasons for the prosecutor's appeal of the "X" are stated as "P," but it appears that the proceeds are KRW 190,659,500,

Operating earnings of KRW 190,659,500 shall be collected as well.

2) The sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, if several persons jointly engage in an act, such as arranging sexual traffic, etc., and if it is impossible to confiscate money, valuables and other property acquired from the crime, the value of the profits actually acquired by each accomplice should be collected individually, and if the individual gain amount cannot be known, the amount of the entire gains should be equally divided and additionally collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do7194, Aug. 20, 2014). According to the record, the Defendant stated at an investigative agency that he/she is an employee of the N and M as an employee of the N and E (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1396, Mar. 20, 200), while the Defendant stated at the investigative agency that he/she is an employee of the N and E (see, e.g., evidence record No. 78 of the evidence record), M is stationed in the above business office and is in charge of the management and operation of female employees (the sexual traffic record No. 1238).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that collected the profits from the operation of the above establishment equally to five accomplices is justifiable.

2) The collection of penalty under Article 48(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act is voluntary and should be subject to the principle of proportionality.