The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The lower court on the grounds of appeal: (a) the Defendant engaged in the brokerage business of sexual traffic from April 2015 to October 5, 2016; (b)

In the judgment, 90,000 won for the period was calculated as a penalty surcharge.

In this regard, on January 18, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Acts, including the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts (the brokerage, etc. of commercial sex acts), and around that time, the above summary order against the Defendant became final and conclusive.

Therefore, it is improper to collect benefits from the defendant until the confirmation date of the above summary order. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as to the calculation of the collection amount.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant did not clearly state the above assertion in the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal, the Defendant’s appeal grounds for appeal issued a summary order of KRW 2 million due to the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, Including the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts (i.e., sexual traffic brokerage, etc.) on January 18, 2016, which constitutes a punishment for business conduct conducted in the same business as this case.

Thus, it is understood to the effect that the act committed by the date when the above summary order became final and conclusive among the criminal acts in this case and the criminal acts in this case are all the crimes that constitute a business crime, and thus, it shall be acquitted, and therefore, it shall not be collected as a revenue from the time above. Thus, the defendant's grounds for appeal shall be determined ex officio by priorizing the grounds for appeal (as seen earlier, only the defendant alleged that the amount of collection was wrong, and did not assert any assertion as to "guilty"). (b) The defendant in this case is the business owner of Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.

On October 5, 2016, the defendant, at the above business establishment around 22:20 on October 5, 2016, had D as the price of similarity from the police officer who pretended to be a customer.