Defendant

All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is no objective evidence to prove the amount to be collected by Defendant A, the court below ordered to collect KRW 112,00,000 on the basis of a remote statement made by Defendant A in an investigative agency, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, two years of suspended execution, confiscation and additional collection 12,00,000 won, Defendant D’s imprisonment of eight months and two years of suspended execution) against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A and the Prosecutor) is too heavy or too harsh (Defendant A).

2. Whether Defendant A’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is subject to confiscation or collection, or recognition of the amount of 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. However, if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it shall

(2) The court below’s decision on April 7, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do9858, Apr. 7, 2006; 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007; 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted at the court below, namely, ① the Defendant operated the Ianma procedure at H from Oct. 2, 2013 to Jun. 17, 2014; ② (i) the Defendant was working as the head of the Ianma procedure at the night office at the investigative agency from Apr. 2, 2014 to Jun. 17, 2014; and (ii) the average monthly average number of women engaged in commercial sex acts from Apr. 2, 2014 to Jun. 27, 2014; and (iii) the above statement was made by the investigative agency from Feb.