The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and confiscation) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the collection of additional collection or by misapprehending the legal principles, on the grounds that there was no objective data on the calculation of additional collection amount.

Although the prosecutor asserts that it was unfair in sentencing that the collection was omitted in the judgment of the court below, it would be judged by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. provides that a person who committed an offense under Article 19 (2) 1 of the said Act shall be subject to the confiscation of money and valuables or other property acquired by the offense, and where confiscation is impossible, the equivalent value thereof shall be additionally collected. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and duly investigated by the trial court, namely, ① the Defendant from around February 25, 2016 to the same year, which were recognized by the evidence duly admitted and duly examined by the trial court.

3. The defendant stated that he had been engaged in business without closing the door until the end of 28, stating that he had been average of 5 to 6 customers per day during the period of business, and that he had been engaged in the business. ② The defendant stated in an investigative agency that "There have been many 12 customers per day, but there have been 5 to 6 customers average," and that "50,000 won if the customer pays 100,000 won as service price, 50,000 won per day, and 60,000 won if the customer pays 130,000 won is acquired as defendant's brokerage fee," ③ in light of the purpose of questioning and the reasons behind the statement at the time when the defendant made the above statement, the "average 5 to 3,00 won per day" appears to be premised on commercial sex acts, ④ the defendant did not separately employ a professional marina, and the 3 female employee who was at the scene at the time of the crime in this case was discovered as well.