The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. In light of the substance of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and thirty million won of the surcharge) is too unreasonable.

2. Since the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation is left to the discretion of the court of first instance.

However, it is restricted by the principle of proportionality as applied to the general penalty.

In order to determine whether confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, the following should be taken into account: (a) the degree and scope used in the commission of the crime and the importance of the crime; (b) the role and degree of responsibility of the owner of the goods in the commission of the crime; (c) the degree of infringement of legal interests and interests by the commission of the crime; (d) the motive of the commission of the crime; (e) the motive for the commission of the crime; (e) profit from the crime; (e) the separate possibility of separating the part related to the commission of the crime from the goods; (e) the substantial value of the goods; (e) the relationship and balance with the goods; (e) whether the goods are

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11586, May 23, 2013). Meanwhile, Article 48(2) of the Criminal Act provides that where it is impossible to confiscate the goods stipulated in Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, the equivalent value thereof shall be additionally collected. In light of the fact that the confiscation of the goods is premised on the fact that the original confiscation is possible, it is reasonable to deem that the confiscation of the goods violates the principle of proportionality.

On April 16, 2013, the record reveals that the Defendant’s name of Sung-nam-si Gtel B 404, 507, and 616 in order to operate a commercial sex business establishment.