2013Do1859 Violation of the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic Act (the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.)

A person shall be appointed.

Prosecutor

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012No4253 Decided January 25, 2013

April 11, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The purpose of additional collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is to deprive the criminal of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the acts of arranging commercial sex acts, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the scope of additional collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the criminal. However, since the expenses, such as taxes, etc. incurred by the criminal in the course of performing the acts of arranging commercial sex acts are only a method of consuming the money and valuables acquired in return for the acts of arranging commercial sex acts or of justifying his/her acts, the additional collection shall not be deducted from

14. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do223, supra)

The lower court determined that the Defendant and Co-Defendant B, C, D, E, and F obtained profits from KRW 156,00,00 in relation to the instant commercial sex acts as co-offenders, and that the accomplices cannot accurately understand the specific amount of profit they received, and thus, the lower court ordered the Defendant to additionally collect KRW 39,00,000,000 in total, on the grounds that the Defendant and the aforementioned accomplices should be equally divided among them.

However, according to the records, the defendant is operating a general business of the sex trafficking business of this case, and the above co-defendants are employed by the defendant and take charge of the male response, guidance, cleaning and reorganization of officetels, settlement of prices, etc. under the direction of the defendant, and are employees who received a monthly salary from the defendant. In light of the above legal principles, the whole amount of profit gained by the act of arranging the sex trafficking in this case is acquired by the defendant, and the payment that the accomplice received from the defendant is merely the consumption of money and valuables acquired by the defendant in return for arranging the sex trafficking.

Therefore, the court below should have calculated the total amount of profit gained by the act of arranging sexual traffic in this case and collected it from the defendant, but ordered the additional collection among the defendant and other accomplices. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim Chang-suk