All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of seventy thousand won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) The first instance judgment of the lower court (the first instance judgment) calculated and collected the profits of the massage practice establishment “AU” more excessively than the actual profits.

(2) The defendant was unable to repay to the victims of the second instance judgment who invested in the shares because he was unable to operate the massage procedure due to repeated crackdown, and there was no intention to obtain money from the victims.

(3) Each sentence of the lower court’s decision on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The first instance judgment of the prosecutor (legal scenarios, first instance judgment) assessed and collected the profits of the Y’s massage treatment establishment under the actual profits.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, this Court decided to concurrently examine each of the above appeal cases, and each of the offenses in the decision of the court below against the defendant is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single punishment shall be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment, which has increased concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below against the defendant can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant and prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles still are subject to the judgment of this court.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principle

A. The purpose of the additional collection under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic is to deprive the criminal of unlawful profits in order to eradicate the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc., so it is reasonable to view that the additional collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the criminal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). Therefore, the amount paid to female employees who are co-offenders of the business of arranging sexual traffic and the massages ought to be deducted from the amount additionally collected.

B. The lower court determined as “AU”.