The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding 8,00,000 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The owner of the Hanma treatment place (hereinafter “instant massage treatment place”) is L, and the Defendant has been operating the instant massage treatment place as L’s employee.

Furthermore, in the event that only some customers have engaged in sexual traffic as a legitimate massage place, and where several persons jointly engage in an act of arranging sexual traffic, etc., if it is impossible to confiscate money and valuables acquired as a result of the crime, the value of the profits actually acquired by each accomplice should be collected separately, and if the value of individual profits cannot be known, the total amount of profit should be collected equally.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the defendant as the business owner of the place of the massage treatment in this case, additionally collected profits from legitimate massage treatment, and further sentenced the defendant to the collection of additional collection without dividing the profits from the act of arranging sexual traffic into two and E, which are co-defendants of the court below. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one million won for imprisonment and eight million won for a fine, one year for probation, 80 hours for community service order, and 414,048,00 won for additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the Defendant is the owner of the instant massage treatment establishment. In other words, the Defendant first recognized that the Defendant was the owner of the instant massage treatment establishment from the investigation stage to the court below’s court, and ② the Defendant received a request from L who appears to be the owner of the instant massage treatment establishment to assist the operation of the instant massage treatment establishment.