The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, most of the revenues earned by the Defendant from the operation of the massage practice place are used as public charges, such as monthly rent of buildings, employees’ benefits, cost of purchasing goods or collection equipment, and electricity and water supply. Therefore, the net revenues actually earned by the Defendant are much less than the amount of the additional collection calculated by the lower court.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that imposed the amount of additional collection exceeding the actual net income of the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles in the calculation of additional collection

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (2 years of probation, observation of protection, 37,368,890 additional collection in February of one year and two months of one year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic is to deprive the criminal of unlawful profits from the act in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of 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 act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. are only one of the methods to consume the money and valuables acquired in return for arranging sexual traffic or to justify his/her act, the collection shall not be deducted from the amount of collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). Therefore, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of collection by the court below which did not deduct the expenses required for the operation of the massage clinic other than the portion paid to the female and the massage employed during the business period, as alleged by the defendant, and it does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles on the punishment of sexual traffic.

B. We examine the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects his fault, and that sexual traffic is being conducted in a considerable number of massage offices.