The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (the additional collection for Defendant A), the court below's failure to collect money from the above Defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to calculate the profit accrued during the above business period, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the additional collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, suspended execution for 2 years, Defendant B: fine of 500,000 won) against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The purpose of collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. is to deprive the offender of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the acts of arranging commercial sex acts, etc., so the scope of collection should be limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2223, May 14, 2009). In addition, where several persons jointly engage in an act of arranging sexual traffic, etc., if it is impossible to confiscate money, valuables, or other property acquired from such crime, the value of the profits actually acquired by each accomplice shall be collected separately, and if the individual amount of profit is not known, the total amount of profit shall be collected equally, and if the individual amount of profit is not known, the entire amount of profit shall be collected additionally, and all the amount of profit from all

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do2223, May 14, 2009; 73Do1963, Apr. 22, 1975). In addition, as to whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, or the recognition of the amount of collection is not related to the elements of a crime, and thus, it does not require strict proof. Therefore, if the average income per day can be specified by the statement of the Defendant, then it can be specified by the statement of the Defendant.