The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the 2-year suspended sentence of one year, observation of protection, and additional collection of KRW 57,934,590, the 57-year suspended sentence of one year, 57, 934, 590) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the above favorable sentencing grounds, including the fact that the defendant is living against the confession of the crime, but there are favorable reasons for sentencing, such as the fact that the period of suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the same crime is shorter than the period of business, the defendant's age, family relationship, economic situation, circumstances leading to the crime and motive, and all other matters concerning the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments on the change of the records of this case, the defendant's argument that the punishment of the court below is reasonable, and that there is no change of circumstances to be considered in the trial, and that there is no reason for the defendant's argument that the amount of the penalty is excessive because the defendant's argument is far more reasonable (the defendant's net income is much less than the rent, employee's salary, goods, etc

However, since the collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic aims to deprive the criminal of unlawful profits from such act in order to eradicate such act, it is reasonable to view that the scope of collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the criminal. However, the tax, etc. paid by the criminal in the course of performing the act such as arranging sexual traffic is only one method of consuming the money and valuables acquired in return for the mediation of sexual traffic, or it is only one method to justify his/her act.

Therefore, it is not possible to deduct the amount from the amount of collection (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008), and the defendant's assertion is without merit). 3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is not reasonable to do so.