The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The scope of additional collection by misapprehending the legal doctrine should be limited to the scope of profit actually earned after deducting the expenses from the sexual traffic price.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that ordered the collection of additional charges on the ground that the defendant exceeded the profit actually acquired without considering the expenses such as the site rent and advertisement fee, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant's wrongful assertion of sentencing recognized all the facts charged in this case and divided his mistake in depth and the defendant is living in good faith without re-offending in the future, the punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of suspended sentence in June) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of the collection of taxes under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. is to deprive the offender of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of the collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender. However, in light of the above legal principles, the expenses of taxes, etc. incurred by the offender in the course of engaging in the act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. are only one way to consume the money and valuables acquired in return for arranging sexual traffic or to justify his/her act, the collection of taxes shall not be deducted from the amount of collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do1859, Apr. 11, 2013; 2009Do223, May 14, 2009). In addition, in light of the above legal principles, it does not require strict proof as to whether the confiscation and collection are subject to confiscation, and the amount of collection should not be lawfully acknowledged in consideration of the aforementioned legal principles.