The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the lower court ordered the collection of the amount equivalent to the above amount on the ground that the Defendant received profit equivalent to KRW 9020,00 from the instant crime, even though there was no actual profit in view of the rental car cost, taxi expenses, etc. paid by the Defendant in mediating sexual traffic, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 30 million and the additional collection of KRW 9020,000) is too unreasonable.

2. 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 offender of unjust enrichment in order to eradicate the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the scope of the additional collection is limited to the profits actually acquired by the offender. However, since the expenses incurred by the offender in the course of performing the acts of arranging sexual traffic are only one way to consume the money and valuables acquired in return for the act of arranging sexual traffic or to justify his act, the additional collection shall not be allowed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do321 Decided February 9, 2012, etc.). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant mediates commercial sex offenders and received KRW 9020,000 as a brokerage fee. In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, inasmuch as the rental car expenses, taxi expenses, etc. claimed by the Defendant constitute necessary expenses for the instant crime, it shall not be deducted from the additionally collected amount.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that ordered the defendant to collect the amount equivalent to the above amount is just, and this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The defendant's confession and reflects the crime of this case, and the same kind of opinion as to the assertion of unfair sentencing.