The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received monthly salary from R, which is the actual operator of the IAnma treatment establishment, and was merely engaged in the so-called “the head of the Ian treatment establishment” in the Ian treatment establishment, and did not obtain the profit accrued from the arrangement of commercial sex acts in the Ian treatment establishment. However, the lower court rendered a decision to additionally collect 72 million won from the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below ex officio determination, the defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence on August 27, 2014 by the Seoul Northern District Court, which was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence on September 4, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 4, 2014. As such, the crime of escape of an offender and the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (Good Practices, etc.), which became final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity. In this respect, the judgment below cannot be maintained further.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles as to collection is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. The purpose of collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. is to deprive the offender of unjust enrichment in order to eradicate the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Therefore, the scope of collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do223, May 14, 2009). The lower court and the trial court are legitimate.