The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (in calculation of a surcharge), the sales revenue confirmed through credit card sales and deposit in the account among the operating income generated from the sales of alcoholic beverages and the intermediation of commercial sex acts is the total of 442,679,459. Of the sales revenue, 287,741,648 won [ = 442,679,679,459 x 130,000 won x 130,000 won for commercial sex acts ± 200,000 won for provision of alcoholic beverages, etc. ] among the sales revenue generated from the brokerage of commercial sex acts, a surcharge shall be collected from the Defendant.

If the amount of KRW 100,000 out of the sexual traffic price is recognized as the amount paid to female employees, and even if the amount corresponding to the above KRW 100,00 is deducted from the above sales amount, at least KRW 66,401,919 should be collected from the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and fine of thirty million won) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) Whether the relevant legal doctrine is subject to additional collection, or the recognition of additional collection amount, etc. are not related to the elements of crime composition, and thus strict proof is not necessary, but also acknowledged by evidence is inevitable, and should not be collected in cases where the crime proceeds subject to additional collection cannot be specified.

On the other hand, since the collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic intends to be deprived of unlawful profits from the act in order to eradicate the act such as arranging sexual traffic, it is reasonable to view that the scope of collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender. If the actor has paid part of the amount received from the customer to the sexual traffic female, the scope of collection is limited to the actual acquired portion (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392 Decided June 26, 2008).