All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 45,727,730) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The judgment of the court below that calculated the Defendant’s additional collection charge at KRW 45,727,730, while the Defendant obtained a total of KRW 65,605,730 through the instant arrangement arrangement business, is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Whether the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts is subject to confiscation or collection, or the recognition of the amount of additional collection, etc. are not related to the facts constituting the elements of crime, and thus, it is not necessary to prove strict evidence, but also should be recognized by evidence. If it is impossible to specify the proceeds of crime subject to confiscation or collection, it shall not

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451 Decided June 14, 2007). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be recognized as having obtained the profits of arranging sexual traffic (Evidence No. 154 through 171, 267, 268 of the evidence record) from the sum of KRW 45,727,730 during the period of the business of arranging sexual traffic in this case (from October 18, 2015 to September 13, 2016 during the business period).

Furthermore, as to whether the defendant acquired earnings in excess of the above amount, the health team and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, the court below's collection of 45,727,730 won from the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as to the calculation of the additional collection charge.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the lower court, by taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant, determined the Defendant’s punishment as above.

In the appellate trial of this case, the defendant is against the confession of all the crime of this case, but such confession.