The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal [it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below which calculated the amount of additional collection and did not deduct 9.2 million won paid by the defendant to the co-defendant B of the court below (=2.3 million won x 4 months)] and unreasonable sentencing.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the additional collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic intends to deprive the criminal of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the scope of the additional collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the criminal. However, since the expenses, such as taxes, etc. paid by the criminal in the course of performing the acts of arranging sexual traffic are only one way to consume the money and valuables acquired in return for the act of arranging sexual traffic or to justify

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2223 Decided May 14, 2009, etc.). In the case where the defendant is an employee of this case who is employed by the defendant and received a monthly salary from the defendant while taking charge of the business of responding to and guiding for men of sexual traffic, managing Arabic commuting to and from work, cleaning and arranging equipments of officetels used as a place of sexual traffic, etc., the whole amount of profit earned through the arrangement of sexual traffic in this case is acquired by the defendant in light of the above legal principles. The wages paid by the defendant to the co-defendant B of the court below are merely a consumption of money acquired by the defendant in return for the arrangement of sexual traffic.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1859 Decided April 11, 2013). Accordingly, the lower court’s determination that calculated the amount of additional collection without deducting the benefits that the Defendant paid to the co-defendant B from the total amount of profit gained through the instant arrangement of commercial sex acts, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection.